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

[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.

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?

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?

Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?

If you, as a member of Congress do not believe a bill is constitutional, get up on the House and Senate floor and say so. Then if and when it comes to a vote, vote against it! If you lose, the courts will figure it out.

You really have some bizarre concepts of how government should work.

 

[Spare_change]

Some advanced countries already have it

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

Now, if the Declaration of Independence was considered law ........

 

[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?

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?

Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?

If you, as a member of Congress do not believe a bill is constitutional, get up on the House and Senate floor and say so. Then if and when it comes to a vote, vote against it! If you lose, the courts will figure it out.

You really have some bizarre concepts of how government should work.

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
to build a consensus on respecting political beliefs equally as religious beliefs,
I don't just expect to go to the Senate floor.

This level of enforcing equal protections of the law, by nature, involves
building respect for consent of the governed among all people
who equally influence govt and should expect govt to represent them.

the entire population becomes the senate floor when we respect
people as the basis of government.

the major differences I see in laws
* I interpret religious freedom as applying to all beliefs, not just religious,
but secular, political and individual beliefs and creeds, with or without a label or established group.
Because otherwise, it woudl be discriminating on the basis of creed
if people of an established group are treated differently from
people with their own beliefs nobody else may share but them.
I find this to be necessary to ensure equal protections of laws.
and to deter bullying by dominance, exclusion or coercion to force one group's
beliefs by majority rule over the equal rights and protections of any minority interest.
* I interpret due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances
as applying to all people as resolving our conflicts directly
where we are equally responsible as govt for corrections, reforms, restitution, etc as needed for
equal justice and protections under law for all sides in all conflicts and complaints of abuses or wrongs
* I interpret the principles in the First Amendment as listing
the individual rights and freedoms that collectively become
the same as the three powers or branches of govt. Whatever govt
does on a collective scale representing the public, we do on a local
scale representing and exercising our own rights and power.

As for the spirit of the laws
* for the judicial branch I focus more on
restorative justice and corrections and restitution
rather than retributive justice by judgment and punishment alone
* for the legislative branch I focus on resolving
conflicts through mediation, conflict resolution and consensus to include protect
and represent all interests and beliefs equally
rather than allowing conflicts of interest to cause bullying by exclusion or coercion
to skew the democratic process by dominance of one side over others
* for executive authority I focus on cooperative
economics and collective responsibility for shared credit
for mutual solutions, rather than unfair competition
and collective punishment and blame for problems that doesn't solve anything.

It is unusual to believe that people can form consensus on laws
and decisions instead of fighting to bully and dominate each other.

but I find the more people find points and principles of agreement
where we can, the ability to form a consensus grows, we share
solutions that would satisfy all parties, and start voting and growing
in that direction. whatever works best is going to dominate.
so where we all agree is going to be the driving force, and
where we disagree is going to either separate or disintegrate
but it can't be the dominating policy if not all the public agrees.

Only the principles, policies and programs that truly reflect
public consent will prevail while contested and conflicted policies will get struck down.
by process of elimination we won't stop until consensus is reached we can all live with.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

If healthcare truly is a right, then the last thing you would want is for it to become an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Individual rights do not come from government. They exist despite government.

Always remember. A government powerful enough to give you things (like rights) is powerful enough to take them from you.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

If healthcare truly is a right, then the last thing you would want is for it to become an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Individual rights do not come from government. They exist despite government.

Always remember. A government powerful enough to give you things (like rights) is powerful enough to take them from you.

Dear Darkwind
I think that would be the equivalent of getting right to life incorporated as an Amendment.
By the time we have any agreement on either one, the right to life or right to health care,
we should agree to recognize these as political beliefs, that opposing sides only
want for themselves, but don't want others to have when it comes to those beliefs.

thus, we'd either agree to recognize these equally under "free exercise" of religion
and neither prohibit or establish either sides' beliefs through govt,
or we might agree to some process of addressing and resolving
conflicts between political beliefs, which are one degree
deeper than religious beliefs, because they are harder
to separate from govt when they directly involve beliefs about govt!

 

[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.

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?

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?

Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?

If you, as a member of Congress do not believe a bill is constitutional, get up on the House and Senate floor and say so. Then if and when it comes to a vote, vote against it! If you lose, the courts will figure it out.

You really have some bizarre concepts of how government should work.

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
to build a consensus on respecting political beliefs equally as religious beliefs,
I don't just expect to go to the Senate floor.

This level of enforcing equal protections of the law, by nature, involves
building respect for consent of the governed among all people
who equally influence govt and should expect govt to represent them.

the entire population becomes the senate floor when we respect
people as the basis of government.

the major differences I see in laws
* I interpret religious freedom as applying to all beliefs, not just religious,
but secular, political and individual beliefs and creeds, with or without a label or established group.
Because otherwise, it woudl be discriminating on the basis of creed
if people of an established group are treated differently from
people with their own beliefs nobody else may share but them.
I find this to be necessary to ensure equal protections of laws.
and to deter bullying by dominance, exclusion or coercion to force one group's
beliefs by majority rule over the equal rights and protections of any minority interest.
* I interpret due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances
as applying to all people as resolving our conflicts directly
where we are equally responsible as govt for corrections, reforms, restitution, etc as needed for
equal justice and protections under law for all sides in all conflicts and complaints of abuses or wrongs
* I interpret the principles in the First Amendment as listing
the individual rights and freedoms that collectively become
the same as the three powers or branches of govt. Whatever govt
does on a collective scale representing the public, we do on a local
scale representing and exercising our own rights and power.

As for the spirit of the laws
* for the judicial branch I focus more on
restorative justice and corrections and restitution
rather than retributive justice by judgment and punishment alone
* for the legislative branch I focus on resolving
conflicts through mediation, conflict resolution and consensus to include protect
and represent all interests and beliefs equally
rather than allowing conflicts of interest to cause bullying by exclusion or coercion
to skew the democratic process by dominance of one side over others
* for executive authority I focus on cooperative
economics and collective responsibility for shared credit
for mutual solutions, rather than unfair competition
and collective punishment and blame for problems that doesn't solve anything.

It is unusual to believe that people can form consensus on laws
and decisions instead of fighting to bully and dominate each other.

but I find the more people find points and principles of agreement
where we can, the ability to form a consensus grows, we share
solutions that would satisfy all parties, and start voting and growing
in that direction. whatever works best is going to dominate.
so where we all agree is going to be the driving force, and
where we disagree is going to either separate or disintegrate
but it can't be the dominating policy if not all the public agrees.

Only the principles, policies and programs that truly reflect
public consent will prevail while contested and conflicted policies will get struck down.
by process of elimination we won't stop until consensus is reached we can all live with.

Wow! You sure can put out a lot of words without really saying anything! I have no idea what point you are trying to get across. It got lost in that rambling incoherent maze you just threw together.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Yea...people gotta live

No reason you should have to worry about it

 

[rightwinger]

Some advanced countries already have it

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

Now, if the Declaration of Independence was considered law ........

Our founders cared about citizens life

Conservatives don't

 

[dblack]

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.

I don't think a "right to healthcare" makes much sense. The rights embodied in the Constitution are protections from unnecessary government interference, not entitlements that government must provide.

Regardless, if the nation wants to make health care a service provided by the federal government, an amendment is the only way I could support the effort. Such a massive change to our society's relationship with government should require more than a simple, partisan majority in Congress.

 

[Spare_change]

Some advanced countries already have it

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

Now, if the Declaration of Independence was considered law ........

Our founders cared about citizens life

Conservatives don't

Some advanced countries already have it

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

Now, if the Declaration of Independence was considered law ........

Our founders cared about citizens life

Conservatives don't

Nice statement ---- bullshit, but a nice statement nonetheless.

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing is more important to We the People than our health

It is great for our General Welfare

 

[Natural Citizen]

Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...

 

[dblack]

Nothing is more important to We the People than our health

It is great for our General Welfare

You forgot the other member of the Holy Trinity - the Commerce Clause.

 

[rightwinger]

Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...

LOL...Ron Freak'n Paul???

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice

 

[Natural Citizen]

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice

Freedom isn't popular to those who hate freedom.

That said, if there's anything in that video that you find error in, I'll be in the neighborhood. I'm qualified to debate the matter if you wish.

 

[dblack]

Dr. Ron Paul, the champion of the constitution, on why healthcare is not a right...

LOL...Ron Freak'n Paul???

Yes. Someone who understands both the Constitution and health care.

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice

That's an oft-repeated, but utterly untrue, claim. Shall we whip out the video and rub your nose in it once again?

 

[Natural Citizen]

That's an oft-repeated, but utterly untrue, claim. Shall we whip out the video and rub your nose in it once again?

Ron Paul: How To Solve The Healthcare Crisis.

 

[rightwinger]

The man who when asked about someone who didn't have healthcare replied....Let him die, he made his choice

Freedom isn't popular to those who hate freedom.

That said, if there's anything in that video that you find error in, I'll be in the neighborhood. I'm qualified to debate the matter if you wish.

Like most of Pauls rants...I ignore them

Our courts don't seem to support his views

 

[rightwinger]

That's an oft-repeated, but utterly untrue, claim. Shall we whip out the video and rub your nose in it once again?

Ron Paul: How To Solve The Healthcare Crisis.

Tell em Ron......just let em die

 

[Natural Citizen]

Like most of Pauls rants...I ignore them

Well, freedom isn't popular. I understand.

Our courts don't seem to support his views

Of course not, our courts don't generally support the constitution. lolol.