Does The Constitution Include Health Care For All?

[goldcatt]

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S." that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. Thomas Jefferson

While it is true that since 1936 in the case I have posted the Hamiltion view of general welfare is the one that most look to as their legal precedent on this matter and not the Madison view. So to make a blanket statement that there is no existing legal precedent in fact there is precedent in law on the Madison view in Bailey v. Drexel but since the FDR threat to pack the courts and as Justice Roberts rightly pointed out the 1936 case was more to save the courts from FDR rather than law. As for the assertion that the general welfare clause is subject to interpretation by congress, the framers of the constitution seem to disagree with that point especially Madison and Jefferson. If the notion is that congress makes a law and the constitutionality of that law is then heard in the courts then the poster is quite correct and I tend to believe that if a healthcare bill is passed with a public option that is exactly where it it headed if it has mandates in it. It should be an interesting case none the less , the recent passage in both houses of the Arizona healthcare freedom act that contradicts this healthcare bill may be a place where it will all start who knows.

General welfare may be cited most often in these debates, but if it were in fact to go to court the main legal argument for constitutionality would be commerce clause. And it would in fact be found constitutional uinder that broad heading. I don't like the breadth of modern commerce clause theory, I'm (obviously) no originalist but IMO it does give too much power to Congress and the Federal government. Be that as it may, reality is.

One question I'm really interested in hearing answered is, if you (not just you specifically but "you" in general) are of the opinion the Federal government does not have the authority to administer health insurance or health care, would the States if they chose to do so?

 

[veritas]

"Access to affordable health care will help insure domestic tranquility, it will provide a common defense against illness and the exorbitant cost of health care, and it will indeed promote the general welfare. Nothing is more crucial to the general welfare of American citizens than their health and that requires access to affordable health care."

"Health care legislation will accomplish three essential objectives:

It will ensure that Americans have health insurance even when they lose their jobs or are between jobs.

It will ensure that Americans who suffer catastrophic illnesses will not have to lose their homes or go bankrupt in order to pay for treatment and hospitalization.

It will cover children who are out of college, but have not yet found jobs.

And—If the legislation includes a public option, it will lower costs by offering the choice of less-costly insurance."

Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Does The Constitution Include Health Care ForÂ*All?

See also:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-all-your-questions-on-uhc-5.html#post1422612

Some Statistics:
Healthcare « ChartingTheEconomy.Com

I have exactly one thing to say to each and every arrogant assertion you've made here: Prove it.

How about before that, you tell us on each of those points, what you'll accept as truth. Just posting "prove it" is intellectually lazy at worst and is not helping an honest debate at best.

Each of those points could be "proven" and rejected if you dont accept what the criteria is for truth.

There is no Zuul, only Fluffy.

Fluffy is grumpy and short on substance, but has an overabundance of snark.

 

[Vast LWC]

If the notion is that congress makes a law and the constitutionality of that law is then heard in the courts then the poster is quite correct and I tend to believe that if a healthcare bill is passed with a public option that is exactly where it it headed if it has mandates in it.

That is my assertion. But in creating the law, Congress is in fact "interpreting" the constitution somewhat. It is up to the court to make the final decision on the interpretation, of course.

It should be an interesting case none the less , the recent passage in both houses of the Arizona healthcare freedom act that contradicts this healthcare bill may be a place where it will all start who knows.

Interesting indeed.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You know what's really great about the Constitution? Not the words or the opinions of a few among the Framers, but the fact that it was designed for us to still be arguing the same arguments today that they did then. The minute we start taking the balance of powers and the delegation of authority for granted without question is the minute the Republic really starts dying. There's room for us all in the argumnent and the question will never, ever be answered, that's the beauty of it. Cheers!

The Republic is already dying. It is dying because the employers (as a whole) of this Republic haave some kind of fetish for emotional orgasmic feel good law. Never mind that the Constitution says otherwise. And on top of that political herpes fest post 1789, we have political whores in Washington so doped up on their political power and position, they are doing whatever it takes to cop their next political fix, even if it is at the expense of the Constitution.

We have enablers enabling the junkies, while they walk around in their political football helmets telling bathroom and freezer stories to the rookies at half-time. And people wonder why the wheels on the bus keep going round and round.

So you think there's no hope at all for the future of the US?

I said nothing of the sort. In my opinion, the people have lost their first love. That first love is Freedom and Liberty as delineated in the Constitution, and not a political whore in Washington, or a partisan hack talking head on the t.v.

The employees are doped up and out of control because the employees have allowed it for decades. Freedom and Liberty does not run on auto-pilot nor does it flourish when it is cheated on time and time again.

"We The People" must start being the employers of this Republic, instead of being slaves to the employees. That is how despotic government is formed.

Instead of taking personal responsibility for the bastardized government this Republic has become, people ( as a whole ) keep playing the partisan football game. The political party win has replaced the Constitution coming first, regardless of the circumstance.

Until and unless "We The People" ( as a whole ) start realizing that they are the check and balance, that they have been the root of the problem, and not the political whores they keep electing, the Republic will continue to decay. "We The People" can turn things around if they truly love Freedom and Liberty more than a political party win or government security. People cannot show contempt for Freedom and Liberty playing the unfaithful spouse, and expect Freedom and Liberty to still be at home, when they are sober long enough to remember were Freedom and Liberty actually lives. As a whole, people are getting the pathetic nanny state government they deserve. Instead of swallowing that bitter pill of truth, they continue to make excuses, rational the inexcusable, and look for their next internet "gotcha" post.

 

[veritas]

But in creating the law, Congress is in fact "interpreting" the constitution somewhat. It is up to the court to make the final decision on the interpretation, of course.

But only if someone makes the effort to disagree, otherwise it just is.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter.

 

[goldcatt]

The Republic is already dying. It is dying because the employers (as a whole) of this Republic haave some kind of fetish for emotional orgasmic feel good law. Never mind that the Constitution says otherwise. And on top of that political herpes fest post 1789, we have political whores in Washington so doped up on their political power and position, they are doing whatever it takes to cop their next political fix, even if it is at the expense of the Constitution.

We have enablers enabling the junkies, while they walk around in their political football helmets telling bathroom and freezer stories to the rookies at half-time. And people wonder why the wheels on the bus keep going round and round.

So you think there's no hope at all for the future of the US?

I said nothing of the sort. In my opinion, the people have lost their first love. That first love is Freedom and Liberty as delineated in the Constitution, and not a political whore in Washington, or a partisan hack talking head on the t.v.

The employees are doped up and out of control because the employees have allowed it for decades. Freedom and Liberty does not run on auto-pilot nor does it flourish when it is cheated on time and time again.

"We The People" must start being the employers of this Republic, instead of being slaves to the employees. That is how despotic government is formed.

Instead of taking personal responsibility for the bastardized government this Republic has become, people ( as a whole ) keep playing the partisan football game. The political party win has replaced the Constitution coming first, regardless of the circumstance.

Until and unless "We The People" ( as a whole ) start realizing that they are the check and balance, that they have been the root of the problem, and not the political whores they keep electing, the Republic will continue to decay. "We The People" can turn things around if they truly love Freedom and Liberty more than a political party win or government security. People cannot show contempt for Freedom and Liberty playing the unfaithful spouse, and expect Freedom and Liberty to still be at home, when they are sober long enough to remember were Freedom and Liberty actually lives. As a whole, people are getting the pathetic nanny state government they deserve. Instead of swallowing that bitter pill of truth, they continue to make excuses, rational the inexcusable, and look for their next internet "gotcha" post.

My whole point is that there is no one, all-encompassing truth. The Union was formed in compromise between splintered factions with different ideas of how to create and maintain "liberty" and that's the way it has always remained. The debate keeps us re-examining the Union. That's a healthy thing regardless of your opinion on the matter, is it not?

So we have different groups of people who assign different values to different types of what you call "freedom" and "liberty". To some such as yourself, it means among other things the freedom to be individualistic and self-reliant. To others, they are willing to give up a certain amount of individual liberty for a minimum of economic liberty. Are you so sure they are killing the Republic that you are willing to dismiss them as outsiders in their own country? You have not said it, but the ultimate implications are fairly obvious.

I see where you can say the People are the problem when it comes to apathy and willful ignorance, but not to differing opinions. These differences have been part of America since the founding, only the issues we use to debate them have changed.

 

[goldcatt]

The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter.

Then who or what is?

 

[Navy1960]

What is really interesting in all this because someone happened to post the preamble or part of it I suppose as constitutional support for mandated healthcare. The person credited with authoring some of the preamble by most constitutional scholars is a man by the name of Gouverneur Morris who was if you read much on the subject a very devout man of faith and believed strongly in morals as the foundation of good Govt. Interestingly enough though, many considered him a Federalist along the lines of Hamiltion however, he was a strong supporter of Washington. Here are some quotes you all might enjoy,

Each state enjoys sovereign power.

This next one I find very interesting in that at least IMO speaks to the power of legislation but I'm sure some of my more liberal friends might enjoy this passage very much.

The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did...they always will. They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres.

“Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

During the Philadelphia Convention, he was a friend and ally of George Washington and others who favored a strong central government. Morris was elected to serve on a committee of five (chaired by William Samuel Johnson) who drafted the final language of the proposed constitution. Catherine Drinker Bowen, in Miracle at Philadelphia, called Morris the committee's "amanuensis," meaning that it was his pen that was responsible for most of the draft, as well as its final polished form.[4]

"An aristocrat to the core," Morris believed that "there never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy".[5] He also thought that common people were incapable of self-government because he feared that the poor would sell their votes to the rich. Consequently, he thought that voting should be restricted to property owners. Morris also opposed admitting new western states on an equal basis with the existing eastern states, fearing that the interior wilderness could not furnish "enlightened" statesmen to the country

The preamble is an introduction statement to the entire document. To take the introduction statement without the entire document is to take it out of context in a very big way, and reading about one of it's author's one can see from history that perhaps healthcare may not have been the first thing on their minds when it was written. Perhaps as it is written and as Jefferson suggested "general welfare" is the power to tax for that welfare and not an all encompassing statement , because if it were then he is correct in his stament that just that would render the rest of the document mute.

 

[goldcatt]

What is really interesting in all this because someone happened to post the preamble or part of it I suppose as constitutional support for mandated healthcare. The person credited with authoring some of the preamble by most constitutional scholars is a man by the name of Gouverneur Morris who was if you read much on the subject a very devout man of faith and believed strongly in morals as the foundation of good Govt. Interestingly enough though, many considered him a Federalist along the lines of Hamiltion however, he was a strong supporter of Washington. Here are some quotes you all might enjoy,

Each state enjoys sovereign power.

This next one I find very interesting in that at least IMO speaks to the power of legislation but I'm sure some of my more liberal friends might enjoy this passage very much.

The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did...they always will. They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres.

“Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

During the Philadelphia Convention, he was a friend and ally of George Washington and others who favored a strong central government. Morris was elected to serve on a committee of five (chaired by William Samuel Johnson) who drafted the final language of the proposed constitution. Catherine Drinker Bowen, in Miracle at Philadelphia, called Morris the committee's "amanuensis," meaning that it was his pen that was responsible for most of the draft, as well as its final polished form.[4]

"An aristocrat to the core," Morris believed that "there never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy".[5] He also thought that common people were incapable of self-government because he feared that the poor would sell their votes to the rich. Consequently, he thought that voting should be restricted to property owners. Morris also opposed admitting new western states on an equal basis with the existing eastern states, fearing that the interior wilderness could not furnish "enlightened" statesmen to the country

The preamble is an introduction statement to the entire document. To take the introduction statement without the entire document is to take it out of context in a very big way, and reading about one of it's author's one can see from history that perhaps healthcare may not have been the first thing on their minds when it was written. Perhaps as it is written and as Jefferson suggested "general welfare" is the power to tax for that welfare and not an all encompassing statement , because if it were then he is correct in his stament that just that would render the rest of the document mute.

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with you in your final conclusion here, but it's good food for thought. I've always been of the opinion the document must be read as a whole, in context and with the full design in mind when interpreting its meaning - not just individual seciotns or clauses. I'd never seen Jefferson's words quite this way before though. Thanks.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

So you think there's no hope at all for the future of the US?

I said nothing of the sort. In my opinion, the people have lost their first love. That first love is Freedom and Liberty as delineated in the Constitution, and not a political whore in Washington, or a partisan hack talking head on the t.v.

The employees are doped up and out of control because the employees have allowed it for decades. Freedom and Liberty does not run on auto-pilot nor does it flourish when it is cheated on time and time again.

"We The People" must start being the employers of this Republic, instead of being slaves to the employees. That is how despotic government is formed.

Instead of taking personal responsibility for the bastardized government this Republic has become, people ( as a whole ) keep playing the partisan football game. The political party win has replaced the Constitution coming first, regardless of the circumstance.

Until and unless "We The People" ( as a whole ) start realizing that they are the check and balance, that they have been the root of the problem, and not the political whores they keep electing, the Republic will continue to decay. "We The People" can turn things around if they truly love Freedom and Liberty more than a political party win or government security. People cannot show contempt for Freedom and Liberty playing the unfaithful spouse, and expect Freedom and Liberty to still be at home, when they are sober long enough to remember were Freedom and Liberty actually lives. As a whole, people are getting the pathetic nanny state government they deserve. Instead of swallowing that bitter pill of truth, they continue to make excuses, rational the inexcusable, and look for their next internet "gotcha" post.

My whole point is that there is no one, all-encompassing truth. The Union was formed in compromise between splintered factions with different ideas of how to create and maintain "liberty" and that's the way it has always remained. The debate keeps us re-examining the Union. That's a healthy thing regardless of your opinion on the matter, is it not?

So we have different groups of people who assign different values to different types of what you call "freedom" and "liberty". To some such as yourself, it means among other things the freedom to be individualistic and self-reliant. To others, they are willing to give up a certain amount of individual liberty for a minimum of economic liberty. Are you so sure they are killing the Republic that you are willing to dismiss them as outsiders in their own country? You have not said it, but the ultimate implications are fairly obvious.

I see where you can say the People are the problem when it comes to apathy and willful ignorance, but not to differing opinions. These differences have been part of America since the founding, only the issues we use to debate them have changed.

You are making assumptions about me and you are wrong. I have been very clear in what I have said. If I had meant to say some people are outsiders and don't belong in the U.S. anymore, I would have stated such.

I noticed you didn't like hearing that "We The People" are the root problem. That is the ugly truth. Unless people are willing to take personal responsibility for their actions, what contempt we see in Washington will continue. The elected are a mirror of the employers. The politicians in Washington didn't get their into office on their own.

I realize and accept that not everyone is going to agree with my positions. That is to be expected. When the disagreement is predicated on principle instead of political potpourri, I don't have a problem with that. It is when it is the latter instead the former that I have a problem. Another words, political cowards.

** The following is a general statement not directed at you. **

Don't tell me you have principles that mean life and death to you, and then make excuses for not standing the wall, when the legal arrows are shot. I have no respect for political cowards, I have no respect for people who treat freedom and liberty as archaic words to be bantered about when it is convenient.

If the people aren't willing to sacrifice their all for freedom and liberty, who will? Whether this Republic lives or dies, is predicated on what "We The People" do.

Men and women of this nation have given their very lives for freedom and liberty. They sacrificed all that one could. How can people not give all they can? It is both frustrating and sad to me, that so many people show such utter disdain for freedom and liberty. They play the harlot and expect the Constitution to remain pure. It doesn't work that way and never has.

 

[Navy1960]

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S." that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. Thomas Jefferson

While it is true that since 1936 in the case I have posted the Hamiltion view of general welfare is the one that most look to as their legal precedent on this matter and not the Madison view. So to make a blanket statement that there is no existing legal precedent in fact there is precedent in law on the Madison view in Bailey v. Drexel but since the FDR threat to pack the courts and as Justice Roberts rightly pointed out the 1936 case was more to save the courts from FDR rather than law. As for the assertion that the general welfare clause is subject to interpretation by congress, the framers of the constitution seem to disagree with that point especially Madison and Jefferson. If the notion is that congress makes a law and the constitutionality of that law is then heard in the courts then the poster is quite correct and I tend to believe that if a healthcare bill is passed with a public option that is exactly where it it headed if it has mandates in it. It should be an interesting case none the less , the recent passage in both houses of the Arizona healthcare freedom act that contradicts this healthcare bill may be a place where it will all start who knows.

General welfare may be cited most often in these debates, but if it were in fact to go to court the main legal argument for constitutionality would be commerce clause. And it would in fact be found constitutional uinder that broad heading. I don't like the breadth of modern commerce clause theory, I'm (obviously) no originalist but IMO it does give too much power to Congress and the Federal government. Be that as it may, reality is.

One question I'm really interested in hearing answered is, if you (not just you specifically but "you" in general) are of the opinion the Federal government does not have the authority to administer health insurance or health care, would the States if they chose to do so?

IMHO the commerce clause is actually the best place for real healthcare reform to begin. I do believe that it gives the Federal Govt. broad powers to regulate commerce among those entities that operate from state to state. We all can pretty much agree that for the most part a large percentage of these health insurance companies in fact do operate from state to state. When I say broad power I mean congress can pass laws regulating those businesses and it's my contention that this is a good place to start to really drive down the costs of health insurance rather than mandating coverage across the board and starting another govt. healthcare program that will eventually be insolvent in a few years. In fact it's my contention that congress could mandate that these business cover the poor and no pre-existing conditions as a part of interstate commerce. While I do not think this clause gives congress the power to make these mandates at a state level it does on those companies that are national in scope. In fact there are many way's that our Govt. can through good legislation act as a positive agent of change through positive change rather than harsh mandates. The goal here is to make healthcare affordable for those that need it and want it and do so in a manner that won't make this nation insolvent.

 

[goldcatt]

I said nothing of the sort. In my opinion, the people have lost their first love. That first love is Freedom and Liberty as delineated in the Constitution, and not a political whore in Washington, or a partisan hack talking head on the t.v.

The employees are doped up and out of control because the employees have allowed it for decades. Freedom and Liberty does not run on auto-pilot nor does it flourish when it is cheated on time and time again.

"We The People" must start being the employers of this Republic, instead of being slaves to the employees. That is how despotic government is formed.

Instead of taking personal responsibility for the bastardized government this Republic has become, people ( as a whole ) keep playing the partisan football game. The political party win has replaced the Constitution coming first, regardless of the circumstance.

Until and unless "We The People" ( as a whole ) start realizing that they are the check and balance, that they have been the root of the problem, and not the political whores they keep electing, the Republic will continue to decay. "We The People" can turn things around if they truly love Freedom and Liberty more than a political party win or government security. People cannot show contempt for Freedom and Liberty playing the unfaithful spouse, and expect Freedom and Liberty to still be at home, when they are sober long enough to remember were Freedom and Liberty actually lives. As a whole, people are getting the pathetic nanny state government they deserve. Instead of swallowing that bitter pill of truth, they continue to make excuses, rational the inexcusable, and look for their next internet "gotcha" post.

My whole point is that there is no one, all-encompassing truth. The Union was formed in compromise between splintered factions with different ideas of how to create and maintain "liberty" and that's the way it has always remained. The debate keeps us re-examining the Union. That's a healthy thing regardless of your opinion on the matter, is it not?

So we have different groups of people who assign different values to different types of what you call "freedom" and "liberty". To some such as yourself, it means among other things the freedom to be individualistic and self-reliant. To others, they are willing to give up a certain amount of individual liberty for a minimum of economic liberty. Are you so sure they are killing the Republic that you are willing to dismiss them as outsiders in their own country? You have not said it, but the ultimate implications are fairly obvious.

I see where you can say the People are the problem when it comes to apathy and willful ignorance, but not to differing opinions. These differences have been part of America since the founding, only the issues we use to debate them have changed.

You are making assumptions about me and you are wrong. I have been very clear in what I have said. If I had meant to say some people are outsiders and don't belong in the U.S. anymore, I would have stated such.

I noticed you didn't like hearing that "We The People" are the root problem. That is the ugly truth. Unless people are willing to take personal responsibility for their actions, what contempt we see in Washington will continue. The elected are a mirror of the employers. The politicians in Washington didn't get their into office on their own.

I realize and accept that not everyone is going to agree with my positions. That is to be expected. When the disagreement is predicated on principle instead of political potpourri, I don't have a problem with that. It is when it is the latter instead the former that I have a problem. Another words, political cowards.

** The following is a general statement not directed at you. **

Don't tell me you have principles that mean life and death to you, and then make excuses for not standing the wall, when the legal arrows are shot. I have no respect for political cowards, I have no respect for people who treat freedom and liberty as archaic words to be bantered about when it is convenient.

If the people aren't willing to sacrifice their all for freedom and liberty, who will? Whether this Republic lives or dies, is predicated on what "We The People" do.

Men and women of this nation have given their very lives for freedom and liberty. They sacrificed all that one could. How can people not give all they can? It is both frustrating and sad to me, that so many people show such utter disdain for freedom and liberty. They play the harlot and expect the Constitution to remain pure. It doesn't work that way and never has.

I do not mean to make assumptions about you, but your words indicate you believe people who have different opinions on what in fact constitutes "liberty" are the problem. What does one do with a problem? Get rid of it, of course. Or simply marginalize it or quarantine it so it is no longer dangerous. I'll agree that the People are often apathetic or willfully ignorant when it comes to their choice of leaders and in that sense are in need of a rude awakening, but to say one definition of "liberty" is the only one (within reason) I cannot accept. People in general will decide on their own what they will give their all for, and it's not always going to be individualism. Their concept of America and what it stands for will not always be individualism. I don't see that in and of itself as the problem. In fact, on the whole I see the debate as part of the solution. If you were offended, my apologies.

Although I'm interested in further explanation of playing the harlot and expecting the Constitution to stay pure?

 

[goldcatt]

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S." that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. Thomas Jefferson

While it is true that since 1936 in the case I have posted the Hamiltion view of general welfare is the one that most look to as their legal precedent on this matter and not the Madison view. So to make a blanket statement that there is no existing legal precedent in fact there is precedent in law on the Madison view in Bailey v. Drexel but since the FDR threat to pack the courts and as Justice Roberts rightly pointed out the 1936 case was more to save the courts from FDR rather than law. As for the assertion that the general welfare clause is subject to interpretation by congress, the framers of the constitution seem to disagree with that point especially Madison and Jefferson. If the notion is that congress makes a law and the constitutionality of that law is then heard in the courts then the poster is quite correct and I tend to believe that if a healthcare bill is passed with a public option that is exactly where it it headed if it has mandates in it. It should be an interesting case none the less , the recent passage in both houses of the Arizona healthcare freedom act that contradicts this healthcare bill may be a place where it will all start who knows.

General welfare may be cited most often in these debates, but if it were in fact to go to court the main legal argument for constitutionality would be commerce clause. And it would in fact be found constitutional uinder that broad heading. I don't like the breadth of modern commerce clause theory, I'm (obviously) no originalist but IMO it does give too much power to Congress and the Federal government. Be that as it may, reality is.

One question I'm really interested in hearing answered is, if you (not just you specifically but "you" in general) are of the opinion the Federal government does not have the authority to administer health insurance or health care, would the States if they chose to do so?

IMHO the commerce clause is actually the best place for real healthcare reform to begin. I do believe that it gives the Federal Govt. broad powers to regulate commerce among those entities that operate from state to state. We all can pretty much agree that for the most part a large percentage of these health insurance companies in fact do operate from state to state. When I say broad power I mean congress can pass laws regulating those businesses and it's my contention that this is a good place to start to really drive down the costs of health insurance rather than mandating coverage across the board and starting another govt. healthcare program that will eventually be insolvent in a few years. In fact it's my contention that congress could mandate that these business cover the poor and no pre-existing conditions as a part of interstate commerce. While I do not think this clause gives congress the power to make these mandates at a state level it does on those companies that are national in scope. In fact there are many way's that our Govt. can through good legislation act as a positive agent of change through positive change rather than harsh mandates. The goal here is to make healthcare affordable for those that need it and want it and do so in a manner that won't make this nation insolvent.

My problem isn't with the power to regulate commerce that crosses state lines, as healh care does. So perhaps my post was misleading in that regard. I don't like the fact that it gives Congress the power to regulate local commerce or even non-commercial activities under the premise that it could, theoretically, affect state to state commerce in some fashion.

I think you're correct in that regulation of existing insurance frameworks is a must. I'm just not sure it goes far enough. To be honest, I'm not sold on any one option. I'm open to pretty much anything that will bring results in both coverage and cost control. I like to think of myself as a pragmatist, but others might call me something else.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

My whole point is that there is no one, all-encompassing truth. The Union was formed in compromise between splintered factions with different ideas of how to create and maintain "liberty" and that's the way it has always remained. The debate keeps us re-examining the Union. That's a healthy thing regardless of your opinion on the matter, is it not?

So we have different groups of people who assign different values to different types of what you call "freedom" and "liberty". To some such as yourself, it means among other things the freedom to be individualistic and self-reliant. To others, they are willing to give up a certain amount of individual liberty for a minimum of economic liberty. Are you so sure they are killing the Republic that you are willing to dismiss them as outsiders in their own country? You have not said it, but the ultimate implications are fairly obvious.

I see where you can say the People are the problem when it comes to apathy and willful ignorance, but not to differing opinions. These differences have been part of America since the founding, only the issues we use to debate them have changed.

You are making assumptions about me and you are wrong. I have been very clear in what I have said. If I had meant to say some people are outsiders and don't belong in the U.S. anymore, I would have stated such.

I noticed you didn't like hearing that "We The People" are the root problem. That is the ugly truth. Unless people are willing to take personal responsibility for their actions, what contempt we see in Washington will continue. The elected are a mirror of the employers. The politicians in Washington didn't get their into office on their own.

I realize and accept that not everyone is going to agree with my positions. That is to be expected. When the disagreement is predicated on principle instead of political potpourri, I don't have a problem with that. It is when it is the latter instead the former that I have a problem. Another words, political cowards.

** The following is a general statement not directed at you. **

Don't tell me you have principles that mean life and death to you, and then make excuses for not standing the wall, when the legal arrows are shot. I have no respect for political cowards, I have no respect for people who treat freedom and liberty as archaic words to be bantered about when it is convenient.

If the people aren't willing to sacrifice their all for freedom and liberty, who will? Whether this Republic lives or dies, is predicated on what "We The People" do.

Men and women of this nation have given their very lives for freedom and liberty. They sacrificed all that one could. How can people not give all they can? It is both frustrating and sad to me, that so many people show such utter disdain for freedom and liberty. They play the harlot and expect the Constitution to remain pure. It doesn't work that way and never has.

I do not mean to make assumptions about you, but your words indicate you believe people who have different opinions on what in fact constitutes "liberty" are the problem. What does one do with a problem? Get rid of it, of course. Or simply marginalize it or quarantine it so it is no longer dangerous. I'll agree that the People are often apathetic or willfully ignorant when it comes to their choice of leaders and in that sense are in need of a rude awakening, but to say one definition of "liberty" is the only one (within reason) I cannot accept. People in general will decide on their own what they will give their all for, and it's not always going to be individualism. Their concept of America and what it stands for will not always be individualism. I don't see that in and of itself as the problem. In fact, on the whole I see the debate as part of the solution. If you were offended, my apologies.

Although I'm interested in further explanation of playing the harlot and expecting the Constitution to stay pure?

I am not offended in honest debate. What you are doing, is projecting what you have experienced as the "norm," in whatever way, and placing that onto my posts.

I have already stated that I am fine with disagreement predicated on a difference of principle. It is when a person puts party power, personal greed, apathy, ignorance, fear before the principle they claim to believe in, that I take umbrage with.

Most people of sound mind and body would not allow themselves to be mentally and physically abused. They would not put up with someone cheating on them, lying to them, and ignoring them. And yet, so many employers of this Republic put up with that very thing, when it comes to their employees. It is foolish to expect positive results from an alliance predicated on those things. And yet, election after election, people keep allowing themselves to be abused expecting a different outcome. It is the battered wife syndrome.

If the employees are allowed to keep running amok, because so many employers don't care, blinded by partisan politics, or too ignorant to know better, how will the foundation of this Republic remain intact?

"The Republicans did it.. the Democrats did it... I voted for candidate X, but he or she wasn't my first choice. They weren't even my third or fourth choice, but I held my nose. Anybody but candidate X. If talking head X or Y would promote that cause, I would get involved. I would vote for candidate X, but they don't have enough support. When they do, I will see about supporting them. The media picked the candidates. We didn't have a say." How many times have you seen or heard people say those kinds of things?

All of the aforementioned are examples of people playing the political harlot, and expecting that there won't be any dire consequences for not taking a firm stand. Political cowards. They always have the latest talking point. Their quiver is always full of excuses. And yet, they claim to want the very best for this Republic. It is always someone elses fault. They are always the victim.

I don't agree with the people espousing such cowardly excuses. At the same time, they have as much right in this Republic as I do.

 

[Toro]

Does the constitution include health care for all?

It sure does.

Somewhere in one of those later amendments, sandwiched between the right to endless reality TV and the Starbucks-on-every-corner amendments.

 

[Oddball]

Nobody asked the hoser contingent!!

 

[goldcatt]

You are making assumptions about me and you are wrong. I have been very clear in what I have said. If I had meant to say some people are outsiders and don't belong in the U.S. anymore, I would have stated such.

I noticed you didn't like hearing that "We The People" are the root problem. That is the ugly truth. Unless people are willing to take personal responsibility for their actions, what contempt we see in Washington will continue. The elected are a mirror of the employers. The politicians in Washington didn't get their into office on their own.

I realize and accept that not everyone is going to agree with my positions. That is to be expected. When the disagreement is predicated on principle instead of political potpourri, I don't have a problem with that. It is when it is the latter instead the former that I have a problem. Another words, political cowards.

** The following is a general statement not directed at you. **

Don't tell me you have principles that mean life and death to you, and then make excuses for not standing the wall, when the legal arrows are shot. I have no respect for political cowards, I have no respect for people who treat freedom and liberty as archaic words to be bantered about when it is convenient.

If the people aren't willing to sacrifice their all for freedom and liberty, who will? Whether this Republic lives or dies, is predicated on what "We The People" do.

Men and women of this nation have given their very lives for freedom and liberty. They sacrificed all that one could. How can people not give all they can? It is both frustrating and sad to me, that so many people show such utter disdain for freedom and liberty. They play the harlot and expect the Constitution to remain pure. It doesn't work that way and never has.

I do not mean to make assumptions about you, but your words indicate you believe people who have different opinions on what in fact constitutes "liberty" are the problem. What does one do with a problem? Get rid of it, of course. Or simply marginalize it or quarantine it so it is no longer dangerous. I'll agree that the People are often apathetic or willfully ignorant when it comes to their choice of leaders and in that sense are in need of a rude awakening, but to say one definition of "liberty" is the only one (within reason) I cannot accept. People in general will decide on their own what they will give their all for, and it's not always going to be individualism. Their concept of America and what it stands for will not always be individualism. I don't see that in and of itself as the problem. In fact, on the whole I see the debate as part of the solution. If you were offended, my apologies.

Although I'm interested in further explanation of playing the harlot and expecting the Constitution to stay pure?

I am not offended in honest debate. What you are doing, is projecting what you have experienced as the "norm," in whatever way, and placing that onto my posts.

I have already stated that I am fine with disagreement predicated on a difference of principle. It is when a person puts party power, personal greed, apathy, ignorance, fear before the principle they claim to believe in, that I take umbrage with.

Most people of sound mind and body would not allow themselves to be mentally and physically abused. They would not put up with someone cheating on them, lying to them, and ignoring them. And yet, so many employers of this Republic put up with that very thing, when it comes to their employees. It is foolish to expect positive results from an alliance predicated on those things. And yet, election after election, people keep allowing themselves to be abused expecting a different outcome. It is the battered wife syndrome.

If the employees are allowed to keep running amok, because so many employers don't care, blinded by partisan politics, or too ignorant to know better, how will the foundation of this Republic remain intact?

"The Republicans did it.. the Democrats did it... I voted for candidate X, but he or she wasn't my first choice. They weren't even my third or fourth choice, but I held my nose. Anybody but candidate X. If talking head X or Y would promote that cause, I would get involved. I would vote for candidate X, but they don't have enough support. When they do, I will see about supporting them. The media picked the candidates. We didn't have a say." How many times have you seen or heard people say those kinds of things?

All of the aforementioned are examples of people playing the political harlot, and expecting that there won't be any dire consequences for not taking a firm stand. Political cowards. They always have the latest talking point. Their quiver is always full of excuses. And yet, they claim to want the very best for this Republic. It is always someone elses fault. They are always the victim.

I don't agree with the people espousing such cowardly excuses. At the same time, they have as much right in this Republic as I do.

We all see, hear and process the world around us from within the framework of our own experiences, BGG. What other perspective is possible? If reading your posts from within my own perspective is somehow projection and dishonest, I'm not sure any honest communication between human beings is possible.

As a matter of fact, I agree with much of what you last posted above. I also think the talking points, the media blame game, the excuses and blind unquestioning partisanship and apathy are problems. If in fact you don't see different opinions on the definition of "freedom" or "liberty" as a problem, then I have no real argument with you. I personally respect the fact that we disagree. It's healthy.

 

[Ralph]

"Access to affordable health care will help insure domestic tranquility, it will provide a common defense against illness and the exorbitant cost of health care, and it will indeed promote the general welfare. Nothing is more crucial to the general welfare of American citizens than their health and that requires access to affordable health care."

"Health care legislation will accomplish three essential objectives:

It will ensure that Americans have health insurance even when they lose their jobs or are between jobs.

It will ensure that Americans who suffer catastrophic illnesses will not have to lose their homes or go bankrupt in order to pay for treatment and hospitalization.

It will cover children who are out of college, but have not yet found jobs.

And—If the legislation includes a public option, it will lower costs by offering the choice of less-costly insurance."

Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Does The Constitution Include Health Care ForÂ*All?

See also:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-all-your-questions-on-uhc-5.html#post1422612

Some Statistics:
Healthcare « ChartingTheEconomy.Com

Just how is tranquility gained by attempting to provide a service this country cannot afford? This is like a child that continually screams and cries in an attempt to have their parent purchase an item that cannot be afforded.

The Central Federal Government was established to provide services to WE THE PEOPLE/STATES that separately could not be attained by individual state. The "PRIMARY".....with a capital P....service that is to be provided by the Central Government is national security, such is constitutionally mandated to be the first bird that dips its beak into the tax payer coffers....that is to include a standing military and a Judicial branch that executes Federal Law that is legislated through common agreement between We the People/States, any law that is not a product of representative legislation deriving from common agreement between the legislators that are "hired" by WE The People/State to represent State Interests...is the sole property of the States/Peoples (Art. 10)....the Federal Government supercedes state law only where such legislation is drafted by common agreement...aka Federal Laws....or is in inclusive to another COMMON STATE AGREEMENT.......THE US CONSTITUTION, as such was drafted and ratified by common agreement of the STATES/WE THE PEOPLE..therefore any WORDS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFIC to that common agreement or COMMON LAW are STATE RESPONSIBILITIES. The "ONLY" other service is the regulation and construction of interstate trade, commerce, and infrastructure......ALL other services can and should be individual or STATE responsibilities.

This Idea of having the Federal Government to be a NANNY STATE was not realized or incorporated until the KING ROOSEVELT years when he specifically stacked SCOTUS with LIBERALS that began interpreting and legislating law from the bench of SCOTUS.....many such LAWS that came into effect were UNCONSTITUTIONAL but the PEOPLE/STATES turned their heads with a wink and grin because of the overall condition of the country during the great depression......that was the direct result of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sticking its nose into the private sector where it constitutionally held not authority to do as much. If the Government would have simply allowed the private sector to run its course it would have self corrected in as little as 18 months as was the case with the 1st recession of the early 20s...but thanks to the Federal Government what begin as a recession due to a market correction turned into a decade long DEPRESSION.....that ended only when the private industry began production again at full tilt to furnish products for self defense of the 2nd world war.

Now, some are suggesting that is the right of the Federal Government to mandate a PRIVATE SERVICE that must be preformed by the work of another and declare such a "RIGHT" of birth. No such right exists.....when the services of any group of peoples are state mandated.......this is not a right but scripted slavery, as no state holds the right to demand the services of anyone at REDUCED rates, as the supposed FREE healthcare plan calls for.

Even medicare remains solvent because the private industry over charges the private insurance companies (thanks to the federal government) to a range of overcharging up to 130-140%.....they must do this in order to make up for the mandatory medicare and welfare treatment which pays only 70-80% of the customary fee. Now the government wants the entire nation to be treated at a 70-80% rate? One gets what they pay for. Just how is one to add 49 million more patients to the system.....at mandatory reduced rates......without adding more physicians but LOSING the best and the brightest because of Government interference?

When the real numbers are crunched there is in actuality less than 10% of the nations population that does not have access to health care.......with the majority of that 10% being young adults that do not need healthcare and often choose not to PURCHASE it because they prefer to buy other products and services with their salary. A picture is painted by the media that would have you believe the numbers are inverted.

Thus we are asked to sacrifice a system that treats up 90% of the population with exceptional medical care....in order to provide a service to the other 10% that often chooses not to be covered in the first place......or are here Illegally to begin with. This entire thing is not about the best interest or tranquility of WE THE PEOPLE...but CONTROL and POWER. Are we willing to sacrifice the Elderly and their health...which is openly admitted to be the first services to be cut in order to grant the entire nation access onto the new program.....to simply give young, by majority healthy young adults...supposedly FREE SERVICES, at the expense of the entire nation?

Does anyone really expect the Federal Government to correct a problem they are responsible for causing in the first place? Or is this simply like the POWER of TAXES and the control of purse strings that are held by the politicians that dish out WE THE PEOPLES money to special pork barrel projects to put more monies into their own private bank accounts. What makes anyone believe that a Federally managed Medical System would be any different? You did take note that the politicians specifically legislated into this supposed ALL inclusive bill.....a loop hole that would allow them to keep the best PRIVATE medical coverage for themselves....no?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I do not mean to make assumptions about you, but your words indicate you believe people who have different opinions on what in fact constitutes "liberty" are the problem. What does one do with a problem? Get rid of it, of course. Or simply marginalize it or quarantine it so it is no longer dangerous. I'll agree that the People are often apathetic or willfully ignorant when it comes to their choice of leaders and in that sense are in need of a rude awakening, but to say one definition of "liberty" is the only one (within reason) I cannot accept. People in general will decide on their own what they will give their all for, and it's not always going to be individualism. Their concept of America and what it stands for will not always be individualism. I don't see that in and of itself as the problem. In fact, on the whole I see the debate as part of the solution. If you were offended, my apologies.

Although I'm interested in further explanation of playing the harlot and expecting the Constitution to stay pure?

I am not offended in honest debate. What you are doing, is projecting what you have experienced as the "norm," in whatever way, and placing that onto my posts.

I have already stated that I am fine with disagreement predicated on a difference of principle. It is when a person puts party power, personal greed, apathy, ignorance, fear before the principle they claim to believe in, that I take umbrage with.

Most people of sound mind and body would not allow themselves to be mentally and physically abused. They would not put up with someone cheating on them, lying to them, and ignoring them. And yet, so many employers of this Republic put up with that very thing, when it comes to their employees. It is foolish to expect positive results from an alliance predicated on those things. And yet, election after election, people keep allowing themselves to be abused expecting a different outcome. It is the battered wife syndrome.

If the employees are allowed to keep running amok, because so many employers don't care, blinded by partisan politics, or too ignorant to know better, how will the foundation of this Republic remain intact?

"The Republicans did it.. the Democrats did it... I voted for candidate X, but he or she wasn't my first choice. They weren't even my third or fourth choice, but I held my nose. Anybody but candidate X. If talking head X or Y would promote that cause, I would get involved. I would vote for candidate X, but they don't have enough support. When they do, I will see about supporting them. The media picked the candidates. We didn't have a say." How many times have you seen or heard people say those kinds of things?

All of the aforementioned are examples of people playing the political harlot, and expecting that there won't be any dire consequences for not taking a firm stand. Political cowards. They always have the latest talking point. Their quiver is always full of excuses. And yet, they claim to want the very best for this Republic. It is always someone elses fault. They are always the victim.

I don't agree with the people espousing such cowardly excuses. At the same time, they have as much right in this Republic as I do.

We all see, hear and process the world around us from within the framework of our own experiences, BGG. What other perspective is possible? If reading your posts from within my own perspective is somehow projection and dishonest, I'm not sure any honest communication between human beings is possible.

As a matter of fact, I agree with much of what you last posted above. I also think the talking points, the media blame game, the excuses and blind unquestioning partisanship and apathy are problems. If in fact you don't see different opinions on the definition of "freedom" or "liberty" as a problem, then I have no real argument with you. I personally respect the fact that we disagree. It's healthy.

I may disagree with, and even dislike certain varying opinions on freedom and liberty from others. But as long as the other opinions are predicated on honest principle instead of the other cowardly drivel, I can respect the opinion while being firmly and fervently opposed to it.