Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Which part of Article 3 is that?Your clever and smug remarks aside, if the Constitution is to be abided solely on its word, then why was it also a requirement therein that a United States Supreme Court would be tasked to rule on all of its stated provisions as required? Do you honestly think the framers were stupid enough to believe that time would stand still and that events would take place necessitating broader definitions?
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.
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.
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.
Nope. No power for universal health care here.
Care to address the topic of where socializing medical services can be found as a federal matter
The prayers of a practicing Catholic... who needs much more practice if he's pro abortion. Huh... bet that carries a LOT of weight with the Saints. Good luck with all that.Liberty,
You really are an idiot. But I will continue to pray for you at Mass.
if the Constitution is to be abided solely on its word, then why was it also a requirement therein that a United States Supreme Court would be tasked to rule on all of its stated provisions as required? Do you honestly think the framers were stupid enough to believe that time would stand still and that events would take place necessitating broader definitions?
That bit, along with the clarifications in the Sixteen Amendment, allows a tax to be levied on income.
The relevance of the commerce clause is to the regulatory apparatus in the law. Which the Court suggested in South-eastern Underwriters includes insurance regulation:
During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation in 1935[24] and changed its interpretation of the Constitution in order to facilitate Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,[25] Wickard v. Filburn),[26] giving a broader reading to the powers of the Federal Government.[27]
In McCulloch, the Court discusses at length the appropriate usage of the necessary and proper clause, concluding that powers necessary for carrying out powers explicitly granted to Congress (in our case, regulating insurance under the Commerce Clause as sanctioned in South-eastern Underwriters) may be exercised by Congress when not expressly forbidden in the Constitution. In this instance, we loop back up to the first point, since the power being exercised is one of taxation. The circle is complete.
Why is it that people think the natural progression of man is to enslavement under socialism?It will take some time, but eventually Universal Health Care will be the law of the land here as it is in advanced democratic nations on this little planet.
So, it seems evident that either the concept of Fabianism is clear over your head, you're in blissful denial or a willing accomplice...Duly noted.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.
Ah, so the law doesn't do that at all. Noted.
Like I said...It's not original intent of strict and defined limitation of federal authority, but what the oligarchy has told us what we can get away with.Umm nowhere does that give power for compulsory consumption. Please look up the definition of Taxes, Duties, Imposts, Exicises.
That bit, along with the clarifications in the Sixteen Amendment, allows a tax to be levied on income.
The relevance of the commerce clause is to the regulatory apparatus in the law. The Court suggested in South-eastern Underwriters ithat the relevant power here includes insurance regulation:
Any enactment by Congress either of partial or of comprehensive regulations of the insurance business would come to us with the most forceful presumption of constitutional validity. The fiction that insurance is not commerce could not be sustained against such a presumption, for resort to the facts would support the presumption in favor of the congressional action. The faction therefore must yield to congressional action and continues only at the sufferance of Congress.
Nope. No power for universal health care here.
In McCulloch, the Court discusses at length the appropriate usage of the necessary and proper clause, concluding that powers necessary for carrying out powers explicitly granted to Congress (in our case, regulating insurance under the Commerce Clause as sanctioned in South-eastern Underwriters) may be exercised by Congress when not expressly forbidden in the Constitution. In this instance, we loop back up to the first point, since the power being exercised is one of taxation. The circle is complete.
Care to address the topic of where socializing medical services can be found as a federal matter
If Congress ever debates a bill socializing medical services, I would encourage you to ask such questions.
Alexander Hamilton viewed the Supreme Court as the weakest branch. None of the founding fathers could have ever dreamed that one day we would have 9 black robed tyrannts who would usurp the power of the legislature and use the power of the judiciary to write law from whole cloth, discover heretofore unknown 'rights' in the constitution and twist or degenerate the meanings of minute clauses like the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare clause to include anything and everything at any time for the sake of a NATIONAL government, not a strictly defined and enumerated federal government tasked with ONLY law between the states, nations and other foreign powers.
A tax is not a good or service to be purchased by compulsion.
Technically (in a sane world), since insurance now can't be sold across state lines, this would no longer be interstate commerce and therefore free of federal regulation.
Ah yes. The "good n' plenty" rears it's ugly head. So the necessary and proper clause takes precedent over the enumerated powers doctrine?
The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarran–Ferguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various states over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.
In other words, the absence of federal regulation is the reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines.
I now remember why I hate arguing legal precedent. It's like arguing advanced theology and hermaneutics where the discussion is based on centuries of rabbis and priests talking to theologians over well warn arguments till all they do is refer to them in shorthand losing sight of the original intent of the argument.Alexander Hamilton viewed the Supreme Court as the weakest branch. None of the founding fathers could have ever dreamed that one day we would have 9 black robed tyrannts who would usurp the power of the legislature and use the power of the judiciary to write law from whole cloth, discover heretofore unknown 'rights' in the constitution and twist or degenerate the meanings of minute clauses like the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare clause to include anything and everything at any time for the sake of a NATIONAL government, not a strictly defined and enumerated federal government tasked with ONLY law between the states, nations and other foreign powers.
U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters actually directly quotes Hamilton in footnote 9.
Alexander Hamilton, in 1791, stating his opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, declared that it would 'admit of little if any question' that the federal power to regulate foreign commerce included 'the regulation of policies of insurance.' 3 Works of Alexander Hamilton (Fed. Ed., N.Y.1904) pp. 445, 469-470.
He was down with a federal role in insurance regulation.
A tax is not a good or service to be purchased by compulsion.
Correct, a tax is...a tax.
Technically (in a sane world), since insurance now can't be sold across state lines, this would no longer be interstate commerce and therefore free of federal regulation.
The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarran–Ferguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various state legislatures over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.
In other words, the absence of federal regulation is the reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines.
However, consider Justice Scalia's concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich 5 years ago:
And the category of “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,” Lopez, supra, at 559, is incomplete because the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
Ah yes. The "good n' plenty" rears it's ugly head. So the necessary and proper clause takes precedent over the enumerated powers doctrine?
No. That's actually explicitly the opposite of what I wrote. The necessary and proper clause exists only to facilitate the execution of the enumerated powers.
U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters actually directly quote Hamilton in footnote 9.
Alexander Hamilton, in 1791, stating his opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, declared that it would 'admit of little if any question' that the federal power to regulate foreign commerce included 'the regulation of policies of insurance.' 3 Works of Alexander Hamilton (Fed. Ed., N.Y.1904) pp. 445, 469-470.
He was down with a federal role in insurance regulation.
Correct, a tax is...a tax.
The reason insurance isn't sold across state lines is because Congress, when faced with this particular decision, purposefully deferred to the states by passing McCarran–Ferguson, which explicitly left it to state governments to regulate health insurance. The result was 50 different regulatory schemes, none permitting insurers licensed outside that scheme (i.e. in a different state) to participate. That's not to say a state couldn't allow out-of-state insurance to be sold within its borders; many such bills have been introduced in various states over the years (e.g. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont) though they haven't passed.
In other words, the absence of federal regulation is the reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines.
However, consider Justice Scalia's concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich 5 years ago:
And the category of “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,” Lopez, supra, at 559, is incomplete because the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
No. That's actually explicitly the opposite of what I wrote. The necessary and proper clause exists only to facilitate the execution of the enumerated powers.
Oh good. Then we're agreed. There is no authority for the federal government to provide health care or insurance as a universal, or single payer or mandated system of care and must be left for the states individually to decide what is the best system in which to use. Once we allow interstate selling of insurance, then I believe the government has a case to be involved in regulating said insurance commerce.
That was a long way to go to finally agree with me, but you managed. Interesting arguments though.
Ohhhh the Fabians want the "fix" in all right.Oh good. Then we're agreed. There is no authority for the federal government to provide health care or insurance as a universal, or single payer or mandated system of care and must be left for the states individually to decide what is the best system in which to use. Once we allow interstate selling of insurance, then I believe the government has a case to be involved in regulating said insurance commerce.
That was a long way to go to finally agree with me, but you managed. Interesting arguments though.
According to the legislation he cited, they abdicated their responsibility in the area of regulating interstate commerce, to the point that they're willfully causing the "problem" that they're now claiming to fix....And it would seem that "fix" is the operative word here.
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.
