Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
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.