Does The Constitution Include Health Care For All?

[goldcatt]

Here's a question: If health care reform is enacted, is the benefit a "right" of the people or the administration of it a "power" of the government, or both?

Your answer IMO depends on how you see it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The means to the end of such "constitutional goals" were spelled out in Article 1, Section 8.

What is claimed to be wanted by the majority of the people (a highly duboius calim in this particular instance) is irrelevant, insofar as the workings of a representative republic go.

Except insofar as the majority chooses the representatives, which they did in November.

If the Democrats make this legislation, and the majority doesn't like it, they can vote other people in to take their place in the next elections.

After all, Democrats just finished suffering through 8 years of policies that we hated and the right approved of, and our tax money was used for that, wasn't it?

Now the Democrats are in charge, and suddenly a whole bunch of Republicans feel that they're being discriminated against. Seems petty and childish to me.

Congress does not now nor ever have the power to create new powers or new responsibilities nor to pay for things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. They MUST create and pass an Amendment to do that. I do not care how many people want it, nor what party is in power. You want new authority for the Government? CREATE an Amendment and get it passed.

Government will hook its authority constitutionally on the ICC and the welfare of the public. The constitutionalist are going to lose big time.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Here's a question: If health care reform is enacted, is the benefit a "right" of the people or the administration of it a "power" of the government, or both?

Your answer IMO depends on how you see it.

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The means to the end of such "constitutional goals" were spelled out in Article 1, Section 8.

What is claimed to be wanted by the majority of the people (a highly duboius calim in this particular instance) is irrelevant, insofar as the workings of a representative republic go.

Except insofar as the majority chooses the representatives, which they did in November.

If the Democrats make this legislation, and the majority doesn't like it, they can vote other people in to take their place in the next elections.

After all, Democrats just finished suffering through 8 years of policies that we hated and the right approved of, and our tax money was used for that, wasn't it?

Now the Democrats are in charge, and suddenly a whole bunch of Republicans feel that they're being discriminated against. Seems petty and childish to me.

First of all, I'm not a republican, so your childish "you guys did it toooooo" argument holds no more water than it ever did...Which has always been none at all.

When you can come up with something of substance, rather than a rephrasing of the equally childish "we won...neeeener-neeeener" and "now it's our turn to be the petty tin pot despots, so deal with it" arguments, bring it on.

Dude - that sent them all to the Handbook of Liberal Ideas because they ran out of talking points. They have to take a few minutes to read up to see what the Liberal's Handbook says about not admitting that they are dumb asses. Stand by. They'll be back with some more lies for us in just a few minutes! They can't digest all the talking points at one meal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here's a question: If health care reform is enacted, is the benefit a "right" of the people or the administration of it a "power" of the government, or both?

Your answer IMO depends on how you see it.

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

The Constitution limits the federal government concerning the inalienable rights of the citizens. Of course we citizens have reciprocal obligations to the charter, embedded in the social compact that makes up the corporate nature of the U.S.A.

 

[goldcatt]

Here's a question: If health care reform is enacted, is the benefit a "right" of the people or the administration of it a "power" of the government, or both?

Your answer IMO depends on how you see it.

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

Are the Amendments not part of the Constitution? The 9th clearly states the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated, so does the 10th.

That's not to say I believe health care coverage is a "right", nor that expansion of government benefits is any kind of new "power". I'd have to see the particulars first. I'm interested in seeing what people with stronger opinions than mine think, and why.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Here's a question: If health care reform is enacted, is the benefit a "right" of the people or the administration of it a "power" of the government, or both?

Your answer IMO depends on how you see it.

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

The Constitution limits the federal government concerning the inalienable rights of the citizens. Of course we citizens have reciprocal obligations to the charter, embedded in the social compact that makes up the corporate nature of the U.S.A.

What I stated about the Constitution is true. Where you posting to expand on my thought, or disagreeing with me?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here's a question: If health care reform is enacted, is the benefit a "right" of the people or the administration of it a "power" of the government, or both?

Your answer IMO depends on how you see it.

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

Are the Amendments not part of the Constitution? The 9th clearly states the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated, so does the 10th.

That's not to say I believe health care coverage is a "right", nor that expansion of government benefits is any kind of new "power". I'd have to see the particulars first. I'm interested in seeing what people with stronger opinions than mine think, and why.

Whatever type of health care reform emerges, it will go to the Supreme Court. I think it will be upheld by a 6 to 3 vote Two of the four Roman Catholic conservatives are very liberal on this issue. Can you identify them?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Here's a question: If health care reform is enacted, is the benefit a "right" of the people or the administration of it a "power" of the government, or both?

Your answer IMO depends on how you see it.

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

Are the Amendments not part of the Constitution? The 9th clearly states the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated, so does the 10th.

That's not to say I believe health care coverage is a "right", nor that expansion of government benefits is any kind of new "power". I'd have to see the particulars first. I'm interested in seeing what people with stronger opinions than mine think, and why.

The Constitution does not grant us rights. If you think government can grant rights under the Constitution, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the Constitution in the first place, in my opinion.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

Are the Amendments not part of the Constitution? The 9th clearly states the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated, so does the 10th.

That's not to say I believe health care coverage is a "right", nor that expansion of government benefits is any kind of new "power". I'd have to see the particulars first. I'm interested in seeing what people with stronger opinions than mine think, and why.

Whatever type of health care reform emerges, it will go to the Supreme Court. I think it will be upheld by a 6 to 3 vote Two of the four Roman Catholic conservatives are very liberal on this issue. Can you identify them?

It won't go to the SCOTUS, unless one or more of the individual states sue the federal government, or their is a case that comes before them, in which they believe their is standing.

If the bill passes, I would like to see the individual states sue the feds. It is time the states played hard ball right back. They should tell the feds to go pound sand,

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Government provided health care is not a right of the people.

 

[Maple]

and then no again.

 

[goldcatt]

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

Are the Amendments not part of the Constitution? The 9th clearly states the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated, so does the 10th.

That's not to say I believe health care coverage is a "right", nor that expansion of government benefits is any kind of new "power". I'd have to see the particulars first. I'm interested in seeing what people with stronger opinions than mine think, and why.

Whatever type of health care reform emerges, it will go to the Supreme Court. I think it will be upheld by a 6 to 3 vote Two of the four Roman Catholic conservatives are very liberal on this issue. Can you identify them?

Uh-huh, sure. And your named plaintiff will show standing how exactly?

 

[goldcatt]

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

Are the Amendments not part of the Constitution? The 9th clearly states the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated, so does the 10th.

That's not to say I believe health care coverage is a "right", nor that expansion of government benefits is any kind of new "power". I'd have to see the particulars first. I'm interested in seeing what people with stronger opinions than mine think, and why.

The Constitution does not grant us rights. If you think government can grant rights under the Constitution, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the Constitution in the first place, in my opinion.

Then why does the Constitution itself use the word "rights"?

The Ninth:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[goldcatt]

You don't like the Ninth? How about the Second?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Or the Fourth?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Or the Sixth?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There are more examples of enumerated rights granted in the Constitution, but you get the idea.

My point is, I haven't made up my mind whether health care is an unenumerated "right", nor do I see government snatching any new "power" it hasn't already been exercising for decades. I've seen plenty of claims for and against both, but not a lot of substantive argument as to why. So, why do you feel the way you do? You've got a chance to win a convert here if you can convince me.

 

[Vanquish]

Wow. Baby Jesus weeps when he hears the misapplication of the enumerated powers doctrine on page one. Congress has the power to create new laws that were never even thought of by the founding fathers. Congress has the power to enact amendments that broaden the power of any of the branches of government.

And what's more, the commerce clause (and the dormant commerce clause theory) pretty much allows Congress to enact whatever the heck they want to.

There's a difference between a right and an entitlement. If you define a right as a limitation on governmental power, then medical care isn't a right. But as has been said elsewhere, I believe it ought to be a moral obligation of the government to make sure that the healthcare system is running fairly for everyone.

I'm sure that there's a large segment of people saying "why am I forced to pay for the other guy. That's my money?" The answer to that is (and I wish Obama would come out and say it this way) that these other people are affecting your healthcare costs anyway, so let's help the less fortunate AND make things cheaper for those already paying by doing so. If we bring them in and regulate the costs, then the previously unsolved variables in the equation can be used to help us all.

 

[goldcatt]

Wow. Baby Jesus weeps when he hears the misapplication of the enumerated powers doctrine on page one. Congress has the power to create new laws that were never even thought of by the founding fathers. Congress has the power to enact amendments that broaden the power of any of the branches of government.

And what's more, the commerce clause (and the dormant commerce clause theory) pretty much allow Congress to enact whatever the heck they want to.

There's a difference between a right and an entitlement. If you define a right as a limitation on governmental power, then medical care isn't a right. But as has been said elsewhere, I believe it ought to be a moral obligation of the government to make sure that the healthcare system is running fairly for everyone.

I'm sure that there's a large segment of people saying "why am I forced to pay for the other guy. That's my money?" The answer to that is (and I wish Obama would come out and say it this way) that these other people are affecting your healthcare costs anyway, so let's help the less fortunate AND make things cheaper for those already paying by doing so. If we bring them in and regulate the costs, then the previously unsolved variables in the equation can be used to help us all.

Not a "right" but a moral obligation. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

I'm no originalist, although I don't personally care for the amazing breadth of today's commerce clause power. It's a neat judicial fiction, IMO. However, whenever I see some posters say something that is very much in force does not in fact exist it bothers me. Ignoring entire realms of jurisprudence because one disagrees is dangerous thinking, it's far wiser to acknowledge reality as it is then argue to change it than to simply ignore it and hope it goes away. Try telling the cop who pulled you over that the State has no constitutional authority to require drivers to stop at a red light and see what happens.

It's early on a Saturday and perhaps I'm rambling here, but that's what coffee is for!

 

[Vanquish]

LOL. I'm right there with you. I wake up almost every day at 5:15 a.m., but it's the java that gets me jumpin.

 

[goldcatt]

Days like today I should dispense with the cup and go straight to an IV drip for maximum efficiency.

But I hope I'm making at least a little bit of sense.

 

[Care4all]

It is not heath care reform. It is government expansion and control. A benefit is not the same thing as a right. And in this case, it is not a benefit to have the federal government expand its powers over you.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It enumerates powers of the government.

Are the Amendments not part of the Constitution? The 9th clearly states the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated, so does the 10th.

That's not to say I believe health care coverage is a "right", nor that expansion of government benefits is any kind of new "power". I'd have to see the particulars first. I'm interested in seeing what people with stronger opinions than mine think, and why.

The Constitution does not grant us rights. If you think government can grant rights under the Constitution, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the Constitution in the first place, in my opinion.

then what exactly is the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, BasicGG?

Care