Founding Fathers Would Have Supported Government-Run Health Care Paid By Mandatory Ta

[Bern80]

It took me 15 minutes to read the constitution, and trust me, free healthcare nor the right to healthcare was not in it. You could have a doctorate in constitutional law, and still not provide one fact of evidence that anyone in this country is entitled to healthcare, sorry, you are wrong. Unless you wanna put out the case law backing up your socialist agenda, you should shut your pie hole. I provided my backup, it happens to be the founding document and the law of the land, now what do you have to back your OPINION up with under case law? And dont try to go the commerce clause route, because that is a dead end for you, trust me.
You should start speaking with facts, not assumptions or what you have been told to talk about by you handlers.

Just like an idiot infantryman. Think you're so smart, that you have all the answers, and when you're not smart enough you resort to bullying.

In short, he was right. There isn't anything in the constitution you can point to that grants the fed the authority to make people purchase things or where health care is a person's right.

 

[The Infidel]

Although you may be right, but they still did not have an individual mandate to force citizens into paying for it because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Also, incase you didn't notice yet, Obama said it was not a tax, until he figured out it would not fly unless it was, then he changed his mind to follow suite, little did he know that the commerce clause does not mandate that citizens buy a product from the government, so sorry Berry, all that college has gone to waste because you chose to follow the olinsky rule instead. you're wrong. Soon you will find this out.

is that why? on what do you base that assertion?n have you looked at the legislative history? have you any idea as to whether such a concept was suggested?

Article 1 Section 8
Look it up

 

[The Infidel]

the president taught con law. did you?

i asked you first...

who's we? you have a mouse in your pocket? i asked a simple question. on what do you base your assertion. i do not have to disprove it. you have to prove it. maybe that didn't work on your old rightwingnut board, but it's how things work here.

No he didnt.... He was a lecturer not a proffessor. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

AND AGAIN...... Article 1 Section 8

Read it

 

[The Infidel]

John Adams and the 5th Congress. Aren't those the same people who passed that wonderful Sedition Act? Yep, they sure didn't have any problems figuring out the constitutionality of things.

Deflection atert!!!!!​

 

[GHook93]

Assuming that interpretation is true, then this country is no better than the Soviet Union ever was, and therefore all humanity is nothing more than a virus on this planet which should be eradicated to the very last.

Wow what logic! Your head must spin very easily.

 

[The Infidel]

Assuming that interpretation is true, then this country is no better than the Soviet Union ever was, and therefore all humanity is nothing more than a virus on this planet which should be eradicated to the very last.

Wow what logic! Your head must spin very easily.

It prolly whistles while it spins (it hollow)

 

[gekaap]

In short, he was right. There isn't anything in the constitution you can point to that grants the fed the authority to make people purchase things or where health care is a person's right.

Nor is there anything in the constitution that authorizes Congress to establish a minimum wage. Nor is there anything that authorizes the establishment or maintenance of an Air Force. The hyper restrictive view of federal government's powers continues to be inaccurate no matter how many times it is repeated.

 

[GHook93]

The argument isn't whether they would have supported it, rather it starts with whether the constitution would have allowed it? Right now Obamacare has been tossed out because the constitution doesn't allow the fed to force people to buy a good or service. However, the constitution gave Congress Spending and Taxation power. Via these powers Congress is fully within its right to enact a Universal Healthcare System.

Then the big question goes away from constitutionality and to whether, Universal Healthcare or a Single Payor is better than our current system or all of the private based systems alternatives our there?

I am skeptical both ways. The current systems sucks. Anyone who denies that is foolish or naive at best. I have posted a few personal examples of why it does. I personally am one big illness or accident away from losing everything and guess what probably 90% of Americans are also. I also think our current employer based system puts our corporations and small businesses at a signficant disadvantage in the global economy, not to mention individuals can't gear their plans towards their and their family needs, nor pick the insurer they want and in MANY cases the doctors they want. Now with Obamacare shot down in the State Supreme Court (do you really thing the right leaning Federal Supreme Court will overturn the lower court? Absolutely not!), pre-existing conditions are back on the table.

However, I have great concern when the government runs anything. They usually fuck it up and squander boat loads of case and line their own pockets!

Arguing whether they would have supported it, is a silly if not pointless argument from either point of view on the arguement. First, healthcare back in 1700s was, well crap. Second, since it was crap it was rather inexpensive. Most people could afford it. Third, there wasn't health insurance (and if there was which I am skeptical the author of your article is being truthful, then it was crap) back then. Fourth, if they truly supported UHC then they would have added it specifically to the constitution and on the reverse, if they were truly against it, then they would have specifically disallowed it. Since they didn't address it, it doesn't really matter what they would have done.

Founding Fathers Would Have Supported Government-Run Health Care Paid By Mandatory Tax
Posted in Liberaland by Alan
January 20, 2011

Greg Sargent makes the case for the founding fathers support for government-run health care paid for by mandatory taxation. Rick Ungar at Forbes writes how the 1798 Congress passed, and President John Adams signed, “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” that created a government-run hospital system that required privately employed sailors to buy health insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

History professor Adam Rothman at Georgetown agrees with the precedent.
“It’s a good example that the post-revolutionary generation clearly thought that the national government had a role in subsidizing health care,” Rothman says. “That in itself is pretty remarkable and a strong refutation of the basic principles that some Tea Party types offer.”

“You could argue that it’s precedent for government run health care,” Rothman continues. “This defies a lot of stereotypes about limited government in the early republic.”

Founding Fathers Would Have Supported Government-Run Health Care Paid By Mandatory Tax Alan Colmes' Liberaland ... atory-tax/

Healthcare/auto insurance is a service. Brocolli is a product.

 

[gekaap]

Deflection atert!!!!!​

How is that a deflection? It was argued that John Adams and the 5th Congress would have been especially keen to understand the intentions of the framers of the constitution. I argue that such is false, and cite an example.

 

[Bern80]

In short, he was right. There isn't anything in the constitution you can point to that grants the fed the authority to make people purchase things or where health care is a person's right.

Nor is there anything in the constitution that authorizes Congress to establish a minimum wage. Nor is there anything that authorizes the establishment or maintenance of an Air Force. The hyper restrictive view of federal government's powers continues to be inaccurate no matter how many times it is repeated.

So perhaps the conclusion one ought to make is that those things aren't constitutional either.

What is inaccurate about an interpretion that the federal government power was meant to be limited. The context of history suggests that the framers wanted government's power to be limited. No person with a shred of common sense, can think otherwise. You want us to believe millions of people fled England, fought a war to be free of their rule, only to decide to come to America and set up a government with just as much power over its people as what it fled? Please attempt some common sense.

i did actually post the original legislation in this thread for you to read. If you read those sticky little details you will find there is little basis for your conclusion.

 

[gekaap]

So perhaps the conclusion one ought to make is that those things aren't constitutional either.

Are you prepared to claim those things unconstitutional? Because the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the minimum wage. I doubt they've ever heard a challenge to the question of the Air Force.

What is inaccurate about an interpretion that the federal government power was meant to be limited. The context of history suggests that the framers wanted government's power to be limited. No person with a shred of common sense, can think otherwise.

I do not doubt that the federal government is limited by the constitution. But the theory of hyper restrictive federal government is flawed.

You want us to believe millions of people fled England, fought a war to be free of their rule, only to decide to come to America and set up a government with just as much power over its people as what it fled? Please attempt some common sense.

What, you mean like establishing George Washington as king? Actually, the real complaint was representation in the government.

i did actually post the original legislation in this thread for you to read. If you read those sticky little details you will find there is little basis for your conclusion.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? What conclusions?

 

[Bern80]

Are you prepared to claim those things unconstitutional? Because the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the minimum wage. I doubt they've ever heard a challenge to the question of the Air Force.

Yes I would. It seems to be that some people think that the SC never gets it wrong where constiutionality is concerned. They do and have. They are the final say of course, it doesn't mean their opinion (interesting that is the technical name of their ruling) comports with the intent of the constitution.

I do not doubt that the federal government is limited by the constitution. But the theory of hyper restrictive federal government is flawed.

'hyper restrictive' is a matter of subjective opinion. What you call restrictive I and many others call simply complying with the constitution. If you want the government to be able to do more than what the constitution allows, just say so. That's something else interesting. There are have been all kinds of arguments on this board and countless others over whether this or that is constitutional. What you NEVER hear is arguing over what government should do that the constitution obviously does not allow. For instance even though it is plainly obvious that the fed does not have the power to to make people purchase things, people like you attempt some interesting mental gymnastics to rationalize that it does. Why don't you simply argue that the constitution be changed to allow it?

What, you mean like establishing George Washington as king? Actually, the real complaint was representation in the government.

It was Hamilton who suggested that he be king and Washington refused. The lefties love to point to Hamilton as their guy in support of expanded government power. Maybe he was. It still doesn't make sense that a citizen would argue to have less freedom.

What are you talking about? What conclusions?

The Act the OP refers to as evidence that the framers would have supported Obamacare. If you read said act a little more thoroughly you woud see that piece of legislation has little in common with Obamacare.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In short, he was right. There isn't anything in the constitution you can point to that grants the fed the authority to make people purchase things or where health care is a person's right.

Nor is there anything in the constitution that authorizes Congress to establish a minimum wage. Nor is there anything that authorizes the establishment or maintenance of an Air Force. The hyper restrictive view of federal government's powers continues to be inaccurate no matter how many times it is repeated.

Article I. Section 8. Clause 1:
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Article I. Section 8. Clause 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress


Now neither clause makes any direct mention of the formation of a NAVY, does that mean that the United States is incapable of the establishment and the maintaining of one according to YOUR interpretation? Surely you can put up a stronger argument that that?



The new Healthcare law is FORCING people to purchase a personal ... SERVICE ... with a "penalty" or "punishment" given to those who don't comply. Now tell me where THAT has ever been done before in our nation's history? I can "choose" to not drive a car, and thereby not be FORCED under penalty or punishment to buy auto insurance. If I don't own a car, I'm also not FORCED to contribute into YOUR insurance policy when YOU decide you'd rather own one. Where does the United States Constitution mandate: that the Federal Government shall [under penalty or punishment] oppress someone's personal rights, and intimidate its citizens to make a freedom of choice decision for them, to buy a ... "personal service" ... like Health Care? Where is that kind of authority given to our Government by our Constitution, can you show me Jillian? Anybody?

 

[GHook93]

Let's be straight here, even Obama was a constitutional scholar and he apparently still has no damn clue about it, please, tell us where you have studied and what case law you are talking about. Because we will back facts up to beat your liberal pretend bob the builder argument all day long.

the president taught con law. did you?

i asked you first...

who's we? you have a mouse in your pocket? i asked a simple question. on what do you base your assertion. i do not have to disprove it. you have to prove it. maybe that didn't work on your old rightwingnut board, but it's how things work here.

It took me 15 minutes to read the constitution, and trust me, free healthcare nor the right to healthcare was not in it. You could have a doctorate in constitutional law, and still not provide one fact of evidence that anyone in this country is entitled to healthcare, sorry, you are wrong. Unless you wanna put out the case law backing up your socialist agenda, you should shut your pie hole. I provided my backup, it happens to be the founding document and the law of the land, now what do you have to back your OPINION up with under case law? And dont try to go the commerce clause route, because that is a dead end for you, trust me.
You should start speaking with facts, not assumptions or what you have been told to talk about by you handlers.

Constitutional Law goes far beyond what is in the constitution. You can't claim an understanding of constitution law while totally neglecting the stare decisis of case law. The right to privacy is not in the constitution, but it has become a fundamental right based on case law in Griswold and Roe v. Wade. Originally the constitution only allowed Federal Courts to hear cases of diversity, but Marbury v. Madison gave them jurisdiction over cases involving questions of constitutionality (the Federal Question).

The Separation of Church and State, the arrogant liberals mocked O'Donnel (partly because she never elaborated on her statement), is not in the constitution and only became a fundamental principle of our society by established CASE LAW doctrine and only became the establishment clause after Reynolds v. US and Everson!

 

[Bern80]

the president taught con law. did you?

i asked you first...

who's we? you have a mouse in your pocket? i asked a simple question. on what do you base your assertion. i do not have to disprove it. you have to prove it. maybe that didn't work on your old rightwingnut board, but it's how things work here.

It took me 15 minutes to read the constitution, and trust me, free healthcare nor the right to healthcare was not in it. You could have a doctorate in constitutional law, and still not provide one fact of evidence that anyone in this country is entitled to healthcare, sorry, you are wrong. Unless you wanna put out the case law backing up your socialist agenda, you should shut your pie hole. I provided my backup, it happens to be the founding document and the law of the land, now what do you have to back your OPINION up with under case law? And dont try to go the commerce clause route, because that is a dead end for you, trust me.
You should start speaking with facts, not assumptions or what you have been told to talk about by you handlers.

Constitutional Law goes far beyond what is in the constitution. You can't claim an understanding of constitution law while totally neglecting the stare decisis of case law. The right to privacy is not in the constitution, but it has become a fundamental right based on case law in Griswold and Roe v. Wade. Originally the constitution only allowed Federal Courts to hear cases of diversity, but Marbury v. Madison gave them jurisdiction over cases involving questions of constitutionality (the Federal Question).

The Separation of Church and State, the arrogant liberals mocked O'Donnel (partly because she never elaborated on her statement), is not in the constitution and only became a fundamental principle of our society by established CASE LAW doctrine and only became the establishment clause after Reynolds v. US and Everson!

Then you have to examine the premise first. Is there anything in the constitution that says when a case is decided whether it comports with constitution or not it must be the new law of the land? 'But case law says...' always seems to be the cry out of people who know the legislation they want isn't in compliance with the constitution. Folks this isn't hard. Judges and juries are fallable people, they have the capacity to make wrong decisions and have. They are of course the final word where any case is concerned however. And if their final word is not in compliance with constitution it simply means they got it wrong.

In a backwards way this attempting to rationalize that every law out there is constitutional by the left at least says they care about the document. But let's stop being naive. Humans are fallable and it is totally naive to attempt to rationalize that every court case that has ever been decided got it right in terms of complying with the constitution. That is statistically impossible. So stop with the hand wringing libs. Instead of making some mealy mouthed excuse about how what the constituion says doesn't really matter because case law is the final say or that a mandate is constitutional based on some extreme mental gymnastics, why don't you people just grow a pair and say 'hey we know this doesn't comply with the constitution so we want to get it changed to allow this." I just think it's interesting that is an argument you never hear from the left. It's always some dishonest stretch of a rationalization about how this or that actually is constitutional.

 

[gekaap]

Nor is there anything in the constitution that authorizes Congress to establish a minimum wage. Nor is there anything that authorizes the establishment or maintenance of an Air Force. The hyper restrictive view of federal government's powers continues to be inaccurate no matter how many times it is repeated.

Article I. Section 8. Clause 1:
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Article I. Section 8. Clause 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress


Now neither clause makes any direct mention of the formation of a NAVY, does that mean that the United States is incapable of the establishment and the maintaining of one according to YOUR interpretation? Surely you can put up a stronger argument that that?[/quote]

The Constitution specifies the Navy elsewhere, as well as the Army. If a hyper restrictive interpretation of the constitution is taken, then the enumeration of some branches of service would rule out any non explicitly enumerated branch of service.

The new Healthcare law is FORCING people to purchase a personal ... SERVICE ... with a "penalty" or "punishment" given to those who don't comply. Now tell me where THAT has ever been done before in our nation's history? I can "choose" to not drive a car, and thereby not be FORCED under penalty or punishment to buy auto insurance. If I don't own a car, I'm also not FORCED to contribute into YOUR insurance policy when YOU decide you'd rather own one.

Your complaint here boils down to the fact that you don't get to opt out. Well too bad. It's against the law to possess cocaine. And you don't get to opt out of that one either. The constitutionality of a law does not hinge on an opt out feature.

Where does the United States Constitution mandate: that the Federal Government shall [under penalty or punishment] oppress someone's personal rights, and intimidate its citizens to make a freedom of choice decision for them, to buy a ... "personal service" ... like Health Care?

Just stop with all this misrepresentation of the facts. First of all, there is no question of oppressing someone's personal rights here. If requiring people buy a product infringed on people's constitutionally protected liberties, then car insurance laws would be illegal, regardless of whether you choose to drive a car or not. So would laws that require people to attend safety classes before they can obtain a handgun permit. Stop pitching a whiny fit like a baby, and stick to the facts.

The constitution does not "mandate" the federal government do much of anything. A few things, but not many. It certainly does not mandate any law to be passed by Congress. For example, the constitution does not mandate that the federal government establish a minimum wage, yet it has, and it's constitutional. Constitutionality does not depend on a constitutional mandate to do such and such.

Where is that kind of authority given to our Government by our Constitution, can you show me Jillian? Anybody?

I can show you all kinds of things. But until you adopt a rational state of mind, and stop ranting like a child who wants more birthday cake, you're not going to be willing to listen to anything.

 

[Bern80]

.I can show you all kinds of things. But until you adopt a rational state of mind, and stop ranting like a child who wants more birthday cake, you're not going to be willing to listen to anything.

Seems you are the one that needs to get rationale. What rationale person argues for having their freedom taken away? What rationale person argues to have fewer choices?

Again you are being truly naive if you think there are no laws on the books that are unconstitutional. You are clearly the one that doesn't get it. The constitution is a document that GRANTS power to the fed. If the power is not granted to them in that document, then the fed can not do it. It's pretty simple. And tell people what they must purchase from someone else is not there. To argue that they do have that power is to argue that government has the authority to require people to purchase or really do anything, meaning we really aren't free at all. It would set a precedent that there is little to nothing government can't make people do and we are only as free as they allow us to be. A concept that is a polar opposite of the ideals this country was founded on and limits on power the constitution put on government.

 

[jillian]

Then you have to examine the premise first. Is there anything in the constitution that says when a case is decided whether it comports with constitution or not it must be the new law of the land? 'But case law says...' always seems to be the cry out of people who know the legislation they want isn't in compliance with the constitution. Folks this isn't hard. Judges and juries are fallable people, they have the capacity to make wrong decisions and have. They are of course the final word where any case is concerned however. And if their final word is not in compliance with constitution it simply means they got it wrong.

In a backwards way this attempting to rationalize that every law out there is constitutional by the left at least says they care about the document. But let's stop being naive. Humans are fallable and it is totally naive to attempt to rationalize that every court case that has ever been decided got it right in terms of complying with the constitution. That is statistically impossible. So stop with the hand wringing libs. Instead of making some mealy mouthed excuse about how what the constituion says doesn't really matter because case law is the final say or that a mandate is constitutional based on some extreme mental gymnastics, why don't you people just grow a pair and say 'hey we know this doesn't comply with the constitution so we want to get it changed to allow this." I just think it's interesting that is an argument you never hear from the left. It's always some dishonest stretch of a rationalization about how this or that actually is constitutional.

please stop talking...

i'm begging you.

 

[Bern80]

Then you have to examine the premise first. Is there anything in the constitution that says when a case is decided whether it comports with constitution or not it must be the new law of the land? 'But case law says...' always seems to be the cry out of people who know the legislation they want isn't in compliance with the constitution. Folks this isn't hard. Judges and juries are fallable people, they have the capacity to make wrong decisions and have. They are of course the final word where any case is concerned however. And if their final word is not in compliance with constitution it simply means they got it wrong.

In a backwards way this attempting to rationalize that every law out there is constitutional by the left at least says they care about the document. But let's stop being naive. Humans are fallable and it is totally naive to attempt to rationalize that every court case that has ever been decided got it right in terms of complying with the constitution. That is statistically impossible. So stop with the hand wringing libs. Instead of making some mealy mouthed excuse about how what the constituion says doesn't really matter because case law is the final say or that a mandate is constitutional based on some extreme mental gymnastics, why don't you people just grow a pair and say 'hey we know this doesn't comply with the constitution so we want to get it changed to allow this." I just think it's interesting that is an argument you never hear from the left. It's always some dishonest stretch of a rationalization about how this or that actually is constitutional.

please stop talking...

i'm begging you.

Words of someone who has run out of anything logical to say. Can you explain ms lawyer how mandating what people have to purchase does NOT set a prcedent that would allow government to make you buy other things or really do anything for that matter?

I'm the one bastardaizing the constitution. That's rich coming from you. It's the fucking JOB of weasels in your profession to bastardize and finagle your way around it however humanly piossible.

 

[GHook93]

It took me 15 minutes to read the constitution, and trust me, free healthcare nor the right to healthcare was not in it. You could have a doctorate in constitutional law, and still not provide one fact of evidence that anyone in this country is entitled to healthcare, sorry, you are wrong. Unless you wanna put out the case law backing up your socialist agenda, you should shut your pie hole. I provided my backup, it happens to be the founding document and the law of the land, now what do you have to back your OPINION up with under case law? And dont try to go the commerce clause route, because that is a dead end for you, trust me.
You should start speaking with facts, not assumptions or what you have been told to talk about by you handlers.

Constitutional Law goes far beyond what is in the constitution. You can't claim an understanding of constitution law while totally neglecting the stare decisis of case law. The right to privacy is not in the constitution, but it has become a fundamental right based on case law in Griswold and Roe v. Wade. Originally the constitution only allowed Federal Courts to hear cases of diversity, but Marbury v. Madison gave them jurisdiction over cases involving questions of constitutionality (the Federal Question).

The Separation of Church and State, the arrogant liberals mocked O'Donnel (partly because she never elaborated on her statement), is not in the constitution and only became a fundamental principle of our society by established CASE LAW doctrine and only became the establishment clause after Reynolds v. US and Everson!

Then you have to examine the premise first. Is there anything in the constitution that says when a case is decided whether it comports with constitution or not it must be the new law of the land? 'But case law says...' always seems to be the cry out of people who know the legislation they want isn't in compliance with the constitution. Folks this isn't hard. Judges and juries are fallable people, they have the capacity to make wrong decisions and have. They are of course the final word where any case is concerned however. And if their final word is not in compliance with constitution it simply means they got it wrong.

In a backwards way this attempting to rationalize that every law out there is constitutional by the left at least says they care about the document. But let's stop being naive. Humans are fallable and it is totally naive to attempt to rationalize that every court case that has ever been decided got it right in terms of complying with the constitution. That is statistically impossible. So stop with the hand wringing libs. Instead of making some mealy mouthed excuse about how what the constituion says doesn't really matter because case law is the final say or that a mandate is constitutional based on some extreme mental gymnastics, why don't you people just grow a pair and say 'hey we know this doesn't comply with the constitution so we want to get it changed to allow this." I just think it's interesting that is an argument you never hear from the left. It's always some dishonest stretch of a rationalization about how this or that actually is constitutional.

Not every doctrine created by Case Law becomes established law of the land. Such at the Separate but Equal Doctrine created by Plessy v. Ferguson! But there are well established case law that is law of the land!

You can never ever follow the constitution to a T, NEVER!!! Not even Scallia would argue you that. I mean he is the guy that rightly argued that police officer don't have to knock and annouce when entering a home if they justifiably believe a knock and announce will put their life in trouble.

Other example:
(1) Can't yell fire in a crowded building - Freedom of Speech.
(2) Can't walk naked in a public park - Freedom of Expression.
(3) Can't commit human scarfices in the name of Allah - Freedom of Religion.
(4) Can't carry a gun to a court house - 2nd Amendment.