Is a Government Takeover of Healthcare Constitutional?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KMAN, Jul 29, 2009.

  1. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
    Can anyone show me where in the constitution gives the Government the right to tell us where we can get our health care?

    Thanks.
     
  2. Epsilon Delta
    Offline

    Epsilon Delta Jedi Master

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,687
    Thanks Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central America
    Ratings:
    +364
    Does it really matter? Your constitution leaves a lot to the imagination. The founding fathers even neglected defining clearly what a "natural born citizen" is. That's a pretty big omission.
     
  3. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    Our government hasn't respected or honored the Constitution of the US for many decades, why should they start now?
     
  4. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
    So I guess those are 2 votes for no...Thanks.
     
  5. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269

    Just FYI...

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

    * Anyone born inside the United States *
    * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
    * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    * There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

    Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
     
  6. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    14,145
    Thanks Received:
    2,592
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,261
    It wasn't a problem for them or anyone of those days. People understood each other and rarely twisted meaning for agenda/political gain.

    It is only after people became 'educated' was it necessary to actually codify what constitutes a citizen of this country.
     
  7. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Short answer on the healthcare issue is no it is not constitutionally authorized to provide healthcare. In fact when FDR was debating the Social Security Act he knew that the Act itself was unconstitutional ans has been heard in the supreme court Flemming v. Nestor,

    The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.

    Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living in abroad would not spend their payments here.

    Flemming v. Nestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In fact the only Americans that are "entitled" to healthcare under the constitution are inmates under the due process clause.

    Inmates have the right to be free, under the Eighth Amendment, from inhuman conditions because those conditions constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment. The term "cruel and unusual" was not defined at the time the Amendment was passed, but it was noted by the Supreme Court in 1848 that such punishments would include "drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive," among other things. Today, many of these punishments may seem antiquated, but the basic scope of the protection remains the same. Any punishment that can be considered inhumane treatment or that violates the basic concept of a person's dignity may be found to be cruel and unusual.
    Rights of Inmates - Learn About the Law

    However this bill will eventually pass as a tax measure most likely under the commerce clause how the Govt, normally tries to stuff everything through.
     

Share This Page