Does The Constitution Include Health Care For All?

[Vast LWC]

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.

"Promote the general welfare" covers a broad category, including providing health care.

That means it is in fact enumerated in the constitution, under this general category.

Now, you may choose to interpret that differently than I do, but legally, Congress has the right to create laws based on how they interpret the constitution, without the requirement of an amendment, as long as the subject at hand falls within their constitutionally defined purview.

Now, perhaps the supreme court might rule that such a law is in fact unconstitutional at a later date, based on their interpretation of the Constitution, but it is not in fact wrong of congress to make the law in the first place.

The constitution was written over 200 years ago. If one were to say that congress could not interpret the constitution, but could only have power over what was specifically and literally enumerated, then an amendment would be required whenever new technologies appeared.

After all, they didn't have cars or computers in the late 18th century, now did they?

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Yes, of course. I've written tens of thousands of words here. Given data that hasn't been used anywhere in the media. Expressed my personal opinion, in detail, in hundreds of posts ranging a wide variety of subjects...

...but really I'm just reading "talking points" from some "liberal handbook".

You caught me.

ROFL.

Hey, here's a thought: Maybe you think this way because that is what you know. Perhaps you should stop projecting your strategems onto others.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Indeed, and as stated before, one of those powers is to "Promote the General Welfare".

A broad category perhaps, but maybe the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote it. After all, they could not foresee the future, so specifically dictating smaller categories would have probably been a bad idea.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Nor are highways, education, power grids, etc etc...

But they are provided by the government.

Because it is the responsibility of government to protect the populace and "Promote the General Welfare".

That's why we have government in the first place, rather than anarchy.

 

[Oscar Wao]

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.

Indeed, and as stated before, one of those powers is to "Promote the General Welfare".

A broad category perhaps, but maybe the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote it. After all, they could not foresee the future, so specifically dictating smaller categories would have probably been a bad idea.

They also forewarned about a totally liberal (liberal as in loose and without many limits) use of the GW clause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founding Fathers were prophets, Wao? And you are their interpreter? All is clear now.

 

[Old Rocks]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

It does not specifically call for the CDC, or for Social Security. But I am very glad that we have both. And they are in accordance with the intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Old Rocks]

The constitution was NOT written as an all encompassing set of directions for what the government can or cannot do.

According to the concept of enumerated powers, yes it is.

It does not include all sorts of things that the government does already that few of us have any problems with.

Anyone here complaining about the Coast Guard?

No?

Well that's run (or at least was run) by the Dept of Treasury.

Try finding the specific clause that allowed the government to create it.

Common defense.

Also, the enumeated power to raise money for that common defense.

Doooooode, you have a problem with anybody that does anything positive.

 

[goldcatt]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

It does not specifically call for the CDC, or for Social Security. But I am very glad that we have both. And they are in accordance with the intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution speaks in broad terms, which is why it has survived as long as it has and also why we argue over it so much. Specifics are up to us, our Representatives and ultimately the courts to work out. That's how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to work.

And yes, I'm glad we have many of the programs and institutions that are not specifically enumerated. I am a creature of the 21st Century and have no desire to live in a late-18th Century nation.

 

[Oddball]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

It does not specifically call for the CDC, or for Social Security. But I am very glad that we have both. And they are in accordance with the intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Nobody asked what usurpations of de jure constitutional governance you are glad about.

And according to the architect of the Constitution, James Madison, as spelled out in Federalist № 41, neither those programs nor socialized medical services are anywhere near in keeping with the intent of the national charter.

 

[Old Rocks]

So you say. Smarter men and women say differantly. You will lose on this one. And on many more issues to come. We are no longer in the 18th Century.

 

[goldcatt]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

It does not specifically call for the CDC, or for Social Security. But I am very glad that we have both. And they are in accordance with the intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Nobody asked what usurpations of de jure constitutional governance you are glad about.

And according to the architect of the Constitution, James Madison, as spelled out in Federalist № 41, neither those programs nor socialized medical services are anywhere near in keeping with the intent of the national charter.

Why do you keep going back to the Federalists? They were nothing but a PR campaign waged by three members of the Convention to try to get the States to ratify the document. As such, they represent one point of view among many represented there, and in a manner analogous to modern advertising. In other words, they are dicta.

 

[Navy1960]

What this boils down to is the meaning of "general welfare" and if you are believer in the 20th century view that was ruled on by the court in 1936 i.e. United States v. Butler

This ruling reveresed the long held premise of limited Govt. and it's definition of the general welfare according the the father of the constitution James Madison in favor of that made by Hamilton.

In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton asserted the general welfare provision conferred a power separate and distinct from the specific grants of legislative power contained in the Constitution. He also claimed the specific grants of legislative power did not qualify or limit the meaning of the general welfare phrase. Therefore, Congress, according to Hamilton, had an independent and unspecified power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare.

This view since 1936 has been the view that the courts generally favor of those of the Madison even though Madison is considered the father of the constitituon. I think it worth noting though what Justice Roberts who was a part of this ruling had to say about this in 1951.

The Supreme Court had no opportunity to interpret this clause until 1936, in United States v. Butler. In striking down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, Justice Owen *Roberts, writing for the majority, held with Hamilton's view, saying that the Taxing and Spending Clause was indeed a separate grant of power to Congress. Because the Court could determine for itself whether a particular tax or expenditure was in the general welfare of the country, however, Roberts read the clause as limiting Congress's reach to matters of “national, as distinguished from local welfare.” The limitation proposed by Butler remained hypothetical, however, since the Court struck down the statute in question on other grounds.

In 1951 the same Justice Roberts wrote the following;

"Looking back it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge ... an insistence by the Court on holding Federal power to what seemed its appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our dual structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government."


Baily V. Drexel
Taft argued the law describes a set course for businesses and when they deviate from that course, a payment is enacted. Taft said “scienter is associated with penalties, not with taxes.” “The court must be blind not to see that the so-called tax imposed to stop the employment of children within the age limits prescribed.” Taft said that the court must commit itself to the highest law of the land and the duty of the court, even though it requires them to refuse legislation designed to promote the highest good. He went on to say that the good sought in unconstitutional legislation leads citizens and legislators down a dangerous path of breaching the constitution and recognized standards. In addition, Congress could take control of many areas of public interest, which the States have control over reserved by the Tenth Amendment, by enacting regulating subjects and enforcing them by a so-called “tax.” This would break down the constitutional limitations on Congress and eliminate the sovereignty of States. A tax is a source of revenue for the government, while a penalty is a regulation and punishment for a certain behavior.

While this case was just prior to the former it shows a view prior to the adoption of the Hamilton view than many see as the meaning of what the clause means.

One thing people seem to get caught up with in this over reach view of the general welfare clause is the following.

The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.

It' fairly obvious that if the framers of the constitution had intended the meaning of general welfare to confer powers to the Federal Govt. that unlimited in scope then they would not have bothered with a a bill of rights. In fact why have the 10th Amendment at all if you confer powers upon the Federal Govt. if you run to the "general welfare" clause as a broad all encompassing meaning. In fact could it that general welfare means as it applies to the taxing provisions of the amendment rather than a broad all encompassing provision that can circumvent the rest of the constitution. In fact the constitution has a mechanism to provide for those that wish healthcare to become as much a right as free speech and thats called the Amendment process. I have long felt that those that advocate mandated coverage for all should go down this road rather than further circumvent the constitution that began with FDR. In fact the commerce clause can give those that advocate healthcare reform as it applies to regulating the healthcare industry and I fail to understand why the congress does not apply it's power under this clause to reform healthcare costs and make it available for those that need it and want it.

 

[Vanquish]

[condescension on] My Con law professor would be cringing right about now [/condescension off]

 

[Oddball]

It does not specifically call for the CDC, or for Social Security. But I am very glad that we have both. And they are in accordance with the intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Nobody asked what usurpations of de jure constitutional governance you are glad about.

And according to the architect of the Constitution, James Madison, as spelled out in Federalist № 41, neither those programs nor socialized medical services are anywhere near in keeping with the intent of the national charter.

Why do you keep going back to the Federalists? They were nothing but a PR campaign waged by three members of the Convention to try to get the States to ratify the document. As such, they represent one point of view among many represented there, and in a manner analogous to modern advertising. In other words, they are dicta.

I dunno....I figure that the context of the meaning of the various constitutional provisions would somehow be pretty well fleshed out by the man who was the principal architect of that document.

Would you perchance have any better source material as to the mindset and intents of Madison at the time??

 

[goldcatt]

Nobody asked what usurpations of de jure constitutional governance you are glad about.

And according to the architect of the Constitution, James Madison, as spelled out in Federalist № 41, neither those programs nor socialized medical services are anywhere near in keeping with the intent of the national charter.

Why do you keep going back to the Federalists? They were nothing but a PR campaign waged by three members of the Convention to try to get the States to ratify the document. As such, they represent one point of view among many represented there, and in a manner analogous to modern advertising. In other words, they are dicta.

I dunno....I figure that the context of the meaning of the various constitutional provisions would somehow be pretty well fleshed out by the man who was the principal architect of that document.

Would you perchance have any better source material as to the mindset and intents of Madison at the time??

Who cares what one man out of the entire Convention thought? Sure, it's interesting to see what he, Jay and Monroe thought would get popular support for State ratification. But at the end of the day they were written by one side of a multifaceted debate to be propaganda.

 

[Oddball]

That "one man" was the principal author of the Constitution.

If Federalist #41 isn't a concise and complete enough elaboration on what that author intended his words to mean, what would be?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." James Madison

 

[goldcatt]

That "one man" was the principal author of the Constitution.

If Federalist #41 isn't a concise and complete enough elaboration on what that author intended his words to mean, what would be?

That one man brokered many of the compromises between the various factions at the convention that ended up in the document, true. But you seriously overstate both his individual importance and the importance of the anonymous serial written for popular consuimption in a effort to drum up support for ratification. You point to an advertisement and quote it as though it was controlling. It is not. It is dicta - interesting BS, but still BS.

Personally IMO the intent of the Founders is clear in a four corners reading of the document. Do you not see the design?

 

[Oddball]

What makes those brokered compromises relevant to the the intent and further specifications on that intent?

I've read the Constitution forwards and backwards more times that I care to mention. That those who seek to exploit its few vagaries in order to play their little game of "living rules" makes the elaborations viz. their intents, via the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers, of the framers extremely salient.