Historical Question - Has anyone ever tried to add a right to healthcare as a constitutional amend.?

[AndyT]

I'm just curious. There's been thousands of ideas for amendments discussed, but has anyone ever in US history tried to go through the proposal/ratify method and actually amend the Constitution to add a right to health care? Thanks so much.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

 

[rightwinger]

Some advanced countries already have it

Our Declaration of Independence called out.......Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness

 

[AndyT]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Hi Emily,
Thanks for much for the in-depth reply. I'm a bit confused by what you say as the next best alternative, though. It's understandable that some individuals believe the ACA is unconstitutional while others do not, but isn't voting for whether the ACA, or any bill really, is constitutional or not a bit redundant? Wouldn't those voting at the time, in case of the ACA example, the majority party Democrats, already believe that this bill was constitutional in the first place? I'm just not sure I see the difference between your example and allowing SCOTUS to decide what parts of the ACA were constitutional in NFIB v. Sebelius, AFTER the bill was in effect. Maybe I'm understanding your scenario wrong, but I'd love to hear more. Thanks!

 

[rightwinger]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

 

[AndyT]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

In NFIB v. Sebelius they did explain that expansion of Medicaid was not a valid way for Congress to use the SPENDING power, so what I'm saying is that judicial review did happen and examined whether the law was constitutional or not. I'm just questioning how this would be different than theoretically doing that constitutional decision in Emily's alternative example.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Hi Emily,
Thanks for much for the in-depth reply. I'm a bit confused by what you say as the next best alternative, though. It's understandable that some individuals believe the ACA is unconstitutional while others do not, but isn't voting for whether the ACA, or any bill really, is constitutional or not a bit redundant? Wouldn't those voting at the time, in case of the ACA example, the majority party Democrats, already believe that this bill was constitutional in the first place? I'm just not sure I see the difference between your example and allowing SCOTUS to decide what parts of the ACA were constitutional in NFIB v. Sebelius, AFTER the bill was in effect. Maybe I'm understanding your scenario wrong, but I'd love to hear more. Thanks!

Hi Andylusion what I was comparing it with
was instead of lobbying to pass a Constitutional Amendment first,
which the believers in right to health care wouldn't do if they already believe it is an inherent right,
Congress could vote on (1) whether ACA was Constitutionally included in federal govt powers or not
before voting on (2) the actual content and bill presented as ACA.

So in this case of ACA, the Republicans would have voted NO, the Democrats would vote YES,
and this would still prove it is biased by BELIEFS on Constitutional grounds and arguments,
instead of arguing that it was based on the content.

I guess what you are saying, we would also need to specify that if the vote
gets split on Constitutional beliefs whether it is Constitutional or not,
then it should go into mediation to address that conflict of beliefs.

In this case, I would have and would STILL recommend that
party and govt leaders acknowledge the ACA mandates violate Constitutional beliefs
while the lack of govt guaranteed health care violates political beliefs in right to health care;
so that the solution would be to SEPARATE funding and jurisdiction
between these two political beliefs. Let the reps, taxpayers and members of parties that believe
it is necessary for equal rights and protections to fund their own programs through their taxes;
and equally allow reps, taxpayers, and members of parties who believe govt health care
can't be forced without consent or representation or it's unconstitutional to fund
their own alternative systems of health care they do consent to.

So if that's what you mean,you are right, there should be a process as to
what to do if the vote on Constitutionality gets split based on politicial beliefs.

Maybe both need to be added to the process,
instead of pushing a contested bill opposed as unconstitutional
through Congress, waiting on the judiciary to rule on it, then
complaining "after the fact" that it's still unconstitutional.
why not address that at the beginning of the process
to fix the flaws and conflicts up front? once it's passed
it causes additional complications trying to repeal, replace, or revise
it while half the country is still yelling and opposed that it's unconstitutional to begin with!

 

[rightwinger]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

In NFIB v. Sebelius they did explain that expansion of Medicaid was not a valid way for Congress to use the SPENDING power, so what I'm saying is that judicial review did happen and examined whether the law was constitutional or not. I'm just questioning how this would be different than theoretically doing that constitutional decision in Emily's alternative example.

Our Congress is broken right now

I would not be giving them additional responsibilities

 

[williepete]

Hi Andy,

The constitution does not give us rights. That is a huge misconception come upon innocently by some and foisted upon others by unscrupulous indoctrination centers. The constitution is a restriction on government to protect our inherent rights.

Look into the history of our founding fathers and the founding of the constitution for your answer.

The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

Other precursors to the Bill of Rights include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

 

[JoeMoma]

Healthcare is a need, not a right. I don't have a right to demand that other people provide my needs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Obamacare was Constitutional

SCOTUS already declared it

Dear rightwinger Only by YOUR political BELIEF that it is "constitutional" for Congress and Courts to impose such a law under penalty, despite the fact it violates the Constitutional beliefs of others forced to comply against religious convictions, including these beliefs that it was unconstitutional.

The beauty of the political beliefs argument, is you and I don't even have to agree on political beliefs to prove the argument; in fact, because we disagree and obviously have conflicting beliefs, this PROVES the very argument of why this is unconstitutional to impose. At the very least, consensus would be necessary so neither side, with your beliefs or mine, is imposed on the other side.

You remind me of the "right to life" advocates who would argue
that passing laws and court rulings imposing faith based
beliefs about abortion is "constitutional" as long as it goes through the process.
I disagree - as long as faith based beliefs are involved, then even if
it passes, it isn't "constitutional" to those whose beliefs
and due process are violated by biases in those laws.

The "defense of marriage" act was also passed as if that was "constitutional"
when it discriminated against beliefs in same sex marriage and thus
was NOT fully constitutional. Bans on same sex marriage were
also unconstitutional even though they passed.

Slavery laws were enforced by legislatures and by courts
that ruled that slaves were property of their owners
and had to be returned by the laws.

rightwinger, why do you think slave descendants argued for reparations?
because govt, all three branches of govt, kept enforcing laws treating
human slaves as property of their owners without equal rights.

So if you want to go back to the mentality of slave laws
being passed and enforced and endorsed by "all three branches of govt"
keep thinking the way you do.

Maybe rightwinger that is the best way for you to understand
how could people have gone along with those laws.
Because you are doing similar when you impose your beliefs
as law just because a majority of people voted on it in Congress and Courts,

Well rightwinger, the other half of Congress voted NO
and the other half of the Supreme Court voted NO in a close 4-5 vote.

You have the right to your political beliefs
and so do the others like me who believe it isn't constitutional
and we do not consent to taxation without representation.

I did not agree to give up my religious freedom to a 4-5 vote by Judges
or a majority rule vote in Congress either. The ACA mandates and penalties
depend on political beliefs that I don't support but which violate my own beliefs.

By the First and Fourteenth Amendments, no govt vote has authority
to discriminate against or penalize me for not complying with policies that violate my beliefs.

That's fine if you don't agree, if you believe it's constitutional to impose such a law anyway.
but I disagree and find it violates other Constitutional principles, beliefs and ethics.

thank you, but I do count political beliefs as religious beliefs
so these cannot be either prohibited or established by govt,
but must reflect and respect the free exercise, choice and consent of the people affected
in order to be Constitutional.

That's my Constitutional belief, I have the right to exercise it,
without being penalized for it or discriminated against by a vote in Courts or Congress.

Yours truly, Emily

 

[AndyT]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Hi Emily,
Thanks for much for the in-depth reply. I'm a bit confused by what you say as the next best alternative, though. It's understandable that some individuals believe the ACA is unconstitutional while others do not, but isn't voting for whether the ACA, or any bill really, is constitutional or not a bit redundant? Wouldn't those voting at the time, in case of the ACA example, the majority party Democrats, already believe that this bill was constitutional in the first place? I'm just not sure I see the difference between your example and allowing SCOTUS to decide what parts of the ACA were constitutional in NFIB v. Sebelius, AFTER the bill was in effect. Maybe I'm understanding your scenario wrong, but I'd love to hear more. Thanks!

Hi Andylusion what I was comparing it with
was instead of lobbying to pass a Constitutional Amendment first,
which the believers in right to health care wouldn't do if they already believe it is an inherent right,
Congress could vote on (1) whether ACA was Constitutionally included in federal govt powers or not
before voting on (2) the actual content and bill presented as ACA.

So in this case of ACA, the Republicans would have voted NO, the Democrats would vote YES,
and this would still prove it is biased by BELIEFS on Constitutional grounds and arguments,
instead of arguing that it was based on the content.

I guess what you are saying, we would also need to specify that if the vote
gets split on Constitutional beliefs whether it is Constitutional or not,
then it should go into mediation to address that conflict of beliefs.

In this case, I would have and would STILL recommend that
party and govt leaders acknowledge the ACA mandates violate Constitutional beliefs
while the lack of govt guaranteed health care violates political beliefs in right to health care;
so that the solution would be to SEPARATE funding and jurisdiction
between these two political beliefs. Let the reps, taxpayers and members of parties that believe
it is necessary for equal rights and protections to fund their own programs through their taxes;
and equally allow reps, taxpayers, and members of parties who believe govt health care
can't be forced without consent or representation or it's unconstitutional to fund
their own alternative systems of health care they do consent to.

So if that's what you mean,you are right, there should be a process as to
what to do if the vote on Constitutionality gets split based on politicial beliefs.

Maybe both need to be added to the process,
instead of pushing a contested bill opposed as unconstitutional
through Congress, waiting on the judiciary to rule on it, then
complaining "after the fact" that it's still unconstitutional.
why not address that at the beginning of the process
to fix the flaws and conflicts up front? once it's passed
it causes additional complications trying to repeal, replace, or revise
it while half the country is still yelling and opposed that it's unconstitutional to begin with!

Hi Emily,
I understand better what you are arguing now. Thanks for the reply. I just don't understand the logic because of course there will be bias, so voting on (1.) the constitutional grounds of the bill AND (2.) the content of the bill seems like you will most likely in MOST cases get about the same amount of votes in both vote procedures. This just seems like an extra step that will lead to the exact same result, basically because I think most politicians will always vote with their party whether they vote on constitutionality or content.

 

[AndyT]

Hi Andy,

The constitution does not give us rights. That is a huge misconception come upon innocently by some and foisted upon others by unscrupulous indoctrination centers. The constitution is a restriction on government to protect our inherent rights.

Look into the history of our founding fathers and the founding of the constitution for your answer.

The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

Other precursors to the Bill of Rights include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

Thank you for the reply, JoeMama. I'm not advocating for or against this proposal, I'm just curious as to if it's ever happened, because there have been so many different interesting amendment proposals.

 

[AndyT]

Hi Andy,

The constitution does not give us rights. That is a huge misconception come upon innocently by some and foisted upon others by unscrupulous indoctrination centers. The constitution is a restriction on government to protect our inherent rights.

Look into the history of our founding fathers and the founding of the constitution for your answer.

The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

Other precursors to the Bill of Rights include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

Thank you for the reply, JoeMama. I'm not advocating for or against this proposal, I'm just curious as to if it's ever happened, because there have been so many different interesting amendment proposals.

JoeMama and WilliePete* My mistake.

 

[emilynghiem]

Healthcare is a need, not a right. I don't have a right to demand that other people provide my needs.

JoeMoma for people who believe it is a right, have a responsibility to provide it for those who share that belief.
similar to the responsibility given to right to life advocates, who are barred from imposing those beliefs
through govt to make all taxpayers fund and follow those policies or face penalties.

It amazes me that so few liberals can see the parallels between the right to life and right to health care arguments.

It seems both sides switched places, where now the right to life people are yelling for "free market choice" outside govt,
while the right to health care people are pushing for mandates through govt to save lives!

It is sad that people cannot see the discrimination by creed going on.
If right to life is barred from being imposed through govt against free choice,
the same treatment should be given to right to health care.

If right to health care can be enforced and imposed on people against their consent as taxpayers and free citizens,
so should the same be allowed for right to life beliefs in saving lives by forcing policies on the public with or without their consent.

If one should be barred from govt on the basis of belief vs. free choice,
shouldn't the other by the same principles and arguments?

By the time more people get that this imposition of beliefs is mutually violating the beliefs of the other,
maybe we will call a truce and agree to fund our respective partisan beliefs SEPARATELY
and quit imposing either one on people of dissenting beliefs. I hope this leads to an
agreement to recognize political beliefs equally as religious beliefs,
where govt can neither prohibit nor establish them, regulate, penalize or
discriminate but must respect the consent and beliefs of all people equally,
regardless of affiliation with the majority or the minority. Beliefs are not subject to govt vote,
but remain free choice of the people, whether expressed as religious, secular, political or other form of creed.

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

You'd have to do it without re-writing the already given natural rights given in modern medicine.
Nobody has gotten anywhere attempting to authorize a welfare state into the constitution.

 

[saveliberty]

Is Social Security a Constitutional Amendment? Nope, never would have passed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Congress does not decide constitutional issues.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Hi Emily,
Thanks for much for the in-depth reply. I'm a bit confused by what you say as the next best alternative, though. It's understandable that some individuals believe the ACA is unconstitutional while others do not, but isn't voting for whether the ACA, or any bill really, is constitutional or not a bit redundant? Wouldn't those voting at the time, in case of the ACA example, the majority party Democrats, already believe that this bill was constitutional in the first place? I'm just not sure I see the difference between your example and allowing SCOTUS to decide what parts of the ACA were constitutional in NFIB v. Sebelius, AFTER the bill was in effect. Maybe I'm understanding your scenario wrong, but I'd love to hear more. Thanks!

Hi Andylusion what I was comparing it with
was instead of lobbying to pass a Constitutional Amendment first,
which the believers in right to health care wouldn't do if they already believe it is an inherent right, Congress could vote on (1) whether ACA was Constitutionally included in federal govt powers or not before voting on (2) the actual content and bill presented as ACA.

So in this case of ACA, the Republicans would have voted NO, the Democrats would vote YES,
and this would still prove it is biased by BELIEFS on Constitutional grounds and arguments,
instead of arguing that it was based on the content.

I guess what you are saying, we would also need to specify that if the vote
gets split on Constitutional beliefs whether it is Constitutional or not,
then it should go into mediation to address that conflict of beliefs.

In this case, I would have and would STILL recommend that
party and govt leaders acknowledge the ACA mandates violate Constitutional beliefs
while the lack of govt guaranteed health care violates political beliefs in right to health care;
so that the solution would be to SEPARATE funding and jurisdiction
between these two political beliefs. Let the reps, taxpayers and members of parties that believe
it is necessary for equal rights and protections to fund their own programs through their taxes;
and equally allow reps, taxpayers, and members of parties who believe govt health care
can't be forced without consent or representation or it's unconstitutional to fund
their own alternative systems of health care they do consent to.

So if that's what you mean,you are right, there should be a process as to
what to do if the vote on Constitutionality gets split based on politicial beliefs.

Maybe both need to be added to the process,
instead of pushing a contested bill opposed as unconstitutional
through Congress, waiting on the judiciary to rule on it, then
complaining "after the fact" that it's still unconstitutional.
why not address that at the beginning of the process
to fix the flaws and conflicts up front? once it's passed
it causes additional complications trying to repeal, replace, or revise
it while half the country is still yelling and opposed that it's unconstitutional to begin with!

Hi Emily,
I understand better what you are arguing now. Thanks for the reply. I just don't understand the logic because of course there will be bias, so voting on (1.) the constitutional grounds of the bill AND (2.) the content of the bill seems like you will most likely in MOST cases get about the same amount of votes in both vote procedures. This just seems like an extra step that will lead to the exact same result, basically because I think most politicians will always vote with their party whether they vote on constitutionality or content.

Yes AndyT so we need to pin this down,
and PROVE where bills/issues are getting split votes based on partisan bias.

We need to recognize this, and start calling out parties on these conflicts of political beliefs.

In all practicality, and to protect the democratic process,
we should WELL address these beliefs BEFORE it comes to a vote in Congress/Courts.
(and not let the entire process go downhill by bullying for political dominance of one side's ideology over the other, but enforce equal inclusion, representation and protection of all beliefs especially where these are in conflict and require carefully written laws to remain neutral)

We already KNOW where the right to life and right to health care beliefs
are written into party platforms, and that the other parties oppose that because it violates their
own beliefs in free choice and free market, also well established in creeds and campaigns
if not voting history.

Why not negotiate around these points and conflicts and keep them out of govt
where the beliefs clash? Allow people and parties to fund their own beliefs separately
even if that requires tax deductions, tax breaks or tax choices in where to direct their portions,
and agree that only where all people and parties AGREE on policies and programs to fund,
those are approved for passage and enforcement through state or federal levels according to
where people agree this represents their beliefs and values.

We require religious organizations to keep their beliefs out of govt.
If we treated political beliefs with the same respect,
yes, we would negotiate and resolve these issues
BEFORE pushing policies for a vote through Congress or Courts.

So AndyT in order to get past the vote test of constitutionality,
that means the proposed legislation or reform would already have had
to be crafted and troubleshot through the various parties to make
sure it WOULD pass Constitutional muster, or it WOULD be struck down at the start.

It would have to get past that test, before the CONTENT of the law
could be voted on, which presumably would also be well reviewed and troubleshot
in advance, in order to even get past the vote for Constitutionality.

If the standard for the test vote of Constitutionality had to be
2/3 or 3/4 then a 51/49 partisan split would not be enough to pass it.
I would support a 100% agreement it is constitutional, provided
that any objections are required to be resolved to reach 100%.

the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed in 1980
'unanimously' by Congress; thus if laws are written well enough
to represent uniform standard, 100% consensus is possible
www.ethics-commission.net
why not a consensus on voting if a law or reform is Constitutional or not,
where any conflicts or objections are required to be resolved by mediation and consensus?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi AndyT while I believe that is the correct process required
to expand jurisdiction of federal govt,
unfortunately it seems the very people who believe that health care is a right
tend not to be Constitutionalists, and don't believe they need to go through
this Constitutional step. Because it is such an engrained belief, advocates
believe this is a natural right, any laws obstructing it are violations of basic human rights,
and thus can be 'struck down' merely by voting by majority rule or overruling by courts.

The Constitutionalists who would support the process of passing
a Constitutional Amendment first tend NOT to believe that health care is
a human right. I believe this explains why the push for health care reform
took this direction: conservatives believe in limited govt where things must be Constitutional for govt to do them; liberals believe in using govt to establish the will of the people, so their beliefs and agenda are pushed through the political and legal system UNTIL they are proven and struck down as unconstitutional "after the fact."

The next best alternative I've run across, is someone suggested on another forum:
why not hold a vote in Congress BEFORE such innovative or contested legislation
is passed whether or not that bill is within the Constitutional powers and limits on federal govt.

That seems a logical way to approach this.

Had Congress first voted on whether ACA was even Constitutional or not,
it could be voted down. Then the advocates of ACA can take that vote NO
as a STEP that then calls for passing a Constitutional Amendment in order
to ADD that power to govt. The opponents can then express their opinion
more clearly that the DUTY itself is outside Constitutional powers of federal govt,
and THAT is the reason for objection (NOT because of the actual content
and purpose promoted as to provide more affordable accessible health care)

Congress does not decide constitutional issues.

Question Admiral Rockwell Tory
should members of Congress be in the business of proposing, passing and pushing
proposed legislation they either know or opponents know and argue
is biased by beliefs and violates the beliefs of others? See Code of Ethics
about not putting loyalty to party above govt duty (which includes equal protection
of the laws for all people regardless of creed) www.ethics-commission.net

If it isn't Congress' job to determine that before proposing voting on or passing
proposed laws, should the people in the districts and state those reps
represent review these laws before giving them to reps to present in Congress?

Should we have a review process at ALL levels of govt decisions,
whereby our Electors review any policy or decision that people in that district
have complained or contested as "unconstitutional or unethical abuses"
and/or biased by conflicting beliefs or interests, and have some Grand Jury
or review system "closer to the people" that catches these conflicts
BEFORE they are proposed and voted on in Congress?

Are you saying it should be checked by people and not members of Congress?

Shouldn't we the people be able to check Govt against abuses
at ALL levels and ALL steps of the democratic process?

Wouldn't it save more resources to resolve conflicts IN ADVANCE
instead of wasting money lobbying for or against without resolving the objections,
then waiting until AFTER a "compromise" bill gets passed to try to fix
the points that got "compromised"

See Code of Ethics on seeking to employ the most economical
means of getting tasks accomplished www.ethics-commission.net

If this isn't the duty of Congress to ensure that proposed laws
AREN'T biased by party over public duty to Constitution,
are you saying the people have to intervene instead of :Congress
to catch correct and prevent conflicts or abuses in advance?