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.
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness along with securing our general welfare provides the words you are looking for....
life, in today's world...takes health care......
i don't believe the constitution stops congress from pursuing universal health care if they feel it necessary to provide for this general welfare of its citizens....
i'm not really for it.....not without major system reforms, but i do not see where the constitution prevents it....
care
The preamble of the Constitution is does not confer powers on any branch of government and should be read only to provide context and flavor to the powers actually granted.
Explanation of the Constitution's Preamble and Supreme Court's interpretation thereof
yes, true....thus giving clearer meaning to ''general welfare'' in the constitution!
You know what Care, as much as it pains me to say it, Article I, Section 8 specifically provides "...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...."
A fair reading of this clause in the current legal context with all the gloss that has been laid on the Constitution by previous Supreme Court decisions would find legal power for the Congress to provide for a system of Nationalized Health care.
Given the location of the clause, I think a court would say you have to give the "general Welfare" portion the same expansive reading as the "common Defence" portion. So, there you have it Constitutional support for the provision.
That said, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
You know what Care, as much as it pains me to say it, Article I, Section 8 specifically provides "...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...."
A fair reading of this clause in the current legal context with all the gloss that has been laid on the Constitution by previous Supreme Court decisions would find legal power for the Congress to provide for a system of Nationalized Health care.
Given the location of the clause, I think a court would say you have to give the "general Welfare" portion the same expansive reading as the "common Defence" portion. So, there you have it Constitutional support for the provision.
That said, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
Well Damn Me! James Madison, in the form of Publius, says I'm wrong.
quoting from Federalist 41:
Not to speak for Madison, when he does so in unmatched eloquence, but I think he's saying that the initial clause of Article I, Section 8, should be read to provide the nature and character of the actual power granting subsequent clauses. So, the Congress does NOT have the power to legislate in every case that concerns either Defense or Welfare, but only in the specifically enumerated cases.
Thanks Dave for pointing out the error of my ways.
I would still say that in the current climate, the court would go the other way with it and find it legal, but Constitutionally, I'm not seeing such a power in Article I, Section 8. Anybody want to argue with Madison?
i agree with madison....just because national defense is a priority and duty of congress does not give them the right to spend our tax dollars willy nilly on defense, or to overspend on defense for ill reasons.....
same with general welfare....all expenditures of the federal gvt should be scrutinized, spent as efficiently as possible, and limited as much as possible....
i still don't see inacting a universal healthcare plan, or regulating the industry somehow, as being unconstitutional nor do i believe this supreme court would either....?
what am i missing?
care
"... for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Care,
Your last statement, I think is correct. This Supreme Court would have no problem with it (Ok, well, Scalia et al. would, but they would be outnumbered by the "I'm sure the power is here somewhere" folks on the other side.
The distinction in what Madison says in Federalist 41 and what the Supremes would see is this. Madison tries to defend the new Constitution against those making essentially the argument that you, and I'm sure the Supreme Court would make saying that in clause 1 it says provide for the common defense and the general welfare so you can pretty much do anything and that gives the Congress too much power.
Madison says only and idiot would read it that way (in 18th century language). He says first, if we wanted it to say that we sure as hell know how to write it better than that (give us some credit). But, further, he says you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe such a thing when we go on to say, in the same sentence, what those things are. We enumerate them in the same sentence, only a semi-colon between each enumeration. So, it would be ridiculous indeed for someone to think that Congress was granted this extraordinary power when the limits are so clearly evident.
Thus, you must find the power to create the National Health care system in the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 in order to do right by Madison. Of course the Supreme Court has long since used the Constitution as so much toilet paper and flushed it, so they'll have no problem finding the power someplace.
So the repeal of slavery?
Also a power the Federal government has taken, in your opinion, without actully having the right to do so, since that is clearly not okayed in the constitution?
Much of government appears to be, under you're strict interpretation, as not within the powers granted to the Feds.
Where do you draw that line in the constitution and what measure are you using to draw it?
Nope, we gave the court too much power and now we're going to reap what we've sown.
that's such bullshit....
the social programs like social security are bringing in SURPLUSSES in taxes, they are bringing in cash MORE than what the social program, social security is paying out....
disgressionary programs ARE NOT bringing in enough taxes to pay for themselves....
and the republican medicare PILL BILL that the pharma industry actually wrote, which passed in the middle of the night, 3am, with arm twisting, without the ability to buy drugs via bulk discounts and without the ability to buy from other countries is the worst bill our congress has ever passed.....
care
Plus I would suggest looking up what was meant by general welfare by the founding fathers.... it did not mean taking away personal responsibility... it did not mean nanny state...
Sigh...
The federal government is facing difficult decisions about its finances, with a growing national debt and long-term fiscal problems that could seriously undercut the nation's prosperity.
The federal deficit has declined in the last several years, but national debt has surged, topping $9 trillion. The nation's long-term obligations are staggering, as the baby boom generation retires and begins to strain the Social Security and Medicare systems. Former U.S Comptroller General David Walker, the federal government's auditor, calls the baby boomers' retirement a "demographic tsunami" that will overwhelm the federal budget. By 2040, there will be little money for anything else other than Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt -- unless something is done.
The Federal Budget | Public Agenda
Tell me again how social spending isn't a problem??
Yep, and if Obama is elected he will only Multiply this problem with More spending, and Economy killing tax increases.
I wonder how much the founding fathers set aside in their budgets for welfare, entitlement programs and other social programs for the general welfare of the US?
how can we find out? that would be cool to find out what they actually legislated and appropiated in their day....!!!
care
Don't we have some time traveler here who predicts the future and stuff ? Maybe she travels backwards too.
)
funny, smart ass!
