If universal health care is so great...

[Liberty]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

 

[Oddball]

The "living rules" doctrine means that you can use whatever cheap excuse you can (i.e. general welfare and the commerce clause), to just make it up on the fly and ignore niggling trifles like prescribed constitutional process.

 

[Liberty]

The "living rules" doctrine means that you can use whatever cheap excuse you can (i.e. general welfare and the commerce clause), to just make it up on the fly and ignore niggling trifles like prescribed constitutional process.

anyone who cites the preamble as law has no base for argument, as if the preamble to the constitution was intended to be legally binding, there would be no need for the 10th amendment, so although I know you yourself are not making that argument, those who do project that argument are easily defeated in debate.

 

[Oddball]

That's not the one they cite...It's the one in the first sentence of Article 1, Section 8.

Basically the same BS arguments, though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

Doesn't need to amend. Next question.

 

[Liberty]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

Doesn't need to amend. Next question.

wow, great argument!

.

..

...

....
.....

 

[Greenbeard]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people."

What would be the purpose of such an amendment?

I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal.

You're going to have to be significantly more specific. You don't think the government has discretion over the tax treatment of health benefits (either in the individual market or benefits provided by an employer)? Or do you not think it can regulate industries? Or are you only talking about the individual mandate?

What are you using "universal health care" to mean?

 

[Oddball]

Read Article 1, section 8.

Where in there can it be construed that congress has the power to run the medical services sector of the economy (or any other for that matter) or compel anyone to buy anything?

 

[Big Fitz]

It's already there under the 'Good n' Plenty' clause?

 

[Big Fitz]

...then why doesn't the government go through the process to amend the constitution to state that "The government shall make no law prohibiting the protection and providing thereof of health and care services for the American people." or something to that extent. I do not support UHC simply because the founding documents do not claim it to be legal, it demands an amendment itself for it to be legal. until then the government, especially the congress that is pushing for this, are violating their oath and are damn near treasonous in my humble opinion. Thank you.

Doesn't need to amend. Next question.

wow, great argument!

.

..

...

....
.....

Don't bother with Joke, Liberty. He's an expert at libberish all day long every day, we never close (our mouth) bullshit. If an ounce of truth gets within a mile of this conversation he'll run away till it's gone.

 

[Greenbeard]

Read Article 1, section 8.

Where in there can it be construed that congress has the power to run the medical services sector of the economy

Read Public Law No: 111-148. Where in there does Congress "run the medical services sector of the economy"?

or compel anyone to buy anything?

I've outlined the relevant bits of the Constitution in other posts:

• Article I, Section 8, Clause 1."The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence 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 3. "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" (See United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association for the relevance here)
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (See McCulloch v. Maryland for the significance here)

 

[Oddball]

IOW, the usual stalking horses that the central planners like to toss out there, in order to claim that they have the power to lord over just about everyone and everything.

How about reading through Federalist #41 and stacking original intent, as elaborated upon by the Constitution's primary author, against your usurper "interpretations" of those vagaries?

Read Public Law No: 111-148. Where in there does Congress "run the medical services sector of the economy"?

That's the end game, and anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows it....Public Law No: 111-148 is just a means to an end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dud and his bud(s) are wrong as usual. The Articles clearly empower Congress, and you guys are standing in a firing squad circle blasting away at each other. Funny!

 

[Big Fitz]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1."The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Umm nowhere does that give power for compulsory consumption. Please look up the definition of Taxes, Duties, Imposts, Exicises. The Debt being talked about is a debt rung up by the government created by providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Note... clearly this is not the general welfare of the CITIZENS, but the welfare of the national government meaning the ability to function.

If you stretch the general welfare clause out of shape to mean the government can do anything it feels to accomplish what they feel is in the best interest of the General Welfare you effectively INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION AND CREATE A TYRANNY, INSTANTLY!

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"

No. This is not a 'one size fits all' power. This is talking about trade treaties allowing industry to trade between other nations, states or Indian Tribes. This does not provide for a compulsion to an individual citizen to consume anything.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (See McCulloch v. Maryland for the significance here)

Nope. No power for universal health care here.

But thank you for playing. The lovely Odette has some lovely parting gifts for you like a cruise to Cuba so you can experience real universal health care that is Michael Moore approved, as well as live out your lives in the result of your ideals.

 

[Yukon.]

Liberty,

You really are an idiot. But I will continue to pray for you at Mass.

 

[MaggieMae]

The "living rules" doctrine means that you can use whatever cheap excuse you can (i.e. general welfare and the commerce clause), to just make it up on the fly and ignore niggling trifles like prescribed constitutional process.

You mean like spending massive amounts of money nation building across the pond and south of the border? Or a couple of decades in non-defense space exploration? Where in the Constitution does is it specifically prescribed that the U.S. has an obligation to commit to foreign aid, except by conditions of treaty? Or get involved in new technology at all?

 

[Oddball]

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

"Regulate" as in to make regular.

For example, states could not set up railroads which changed gauges at the state line, which would impede interstate commerce....Ironically, Obunglercare further empowers the in-state insurance quasi-monopolies that the interstate commerce clause was meant to protect against.

Welcome to the rabbit hole, Alice.

 

[MaggieMae]

IOW, the usual stalking horses that the central planners like to toss out there, in order to claim that they have the power to lord over just about everyone and everything.

How about reading through Federalist #41 and stacking original intent, as elaborated upon by the Constitution's primary author, against your usurper "interpretations" of those vagaries?

Read Public Law No: 111-148. Where in there does Congress "run the medical services sector of the economy"?

That's the end game, and anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows it....Public Law No: 111-148 is just a means to an end.

The Federalist Papers, nor the Declaration of Independence (which others claim as precedent) are what the USSC relies upon in ruling. Nice try.

 

[Oddball]

The "living rules" doctrine means that you can use whatever cheap excuse you can (i.e. general welfare and the commerce clause), to just make it up on the fly and ignore niggling trifles like prescribed constitutional process.

You mean like spending massive amounts of money nation building across the pond and south of the border? Or a couple of decades in non-defense space exploration? Where in the Constitution does is it specifically prescribed that the U.S. has an obligation to commit to foreign aid, except by conditions of treaty? Or get involved in new technology at all?

Yeah, kinda like that.

But you've never heard me support those things, have you?

Nope...Didn't think so.

 

[Oddball]

IOW, the usual stalking horses that the central planners like to toss out there, in order to claim that they have the power to lord over just about everyone and everything.

How about reading through Federalist #41 and stacking original intent, as elaborated upon by the Constitution's primary author, against your usurper "interpretations" of those vagaries?

Read Public Law No: 111-148. Where in there does Congress "run the medical services sector of the economy"?

That's the end game, and anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows it....Public Law No: 111-148 is just a means to an end.

The Federalist Papers, nor the Declaration of Independence (which others claim as precedent) are what the USSC relies upon in ruling. Nice try.

Well, they're conveniently ignored by out-of-control politicians and a judicial oligarchy that want to make up the rules as they go along...But that's kinda the point.