Opinions about the constitutionality of socialized healthcare

[manifold]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

Well it is my opinion that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is unconstitutional, including this health care bill. I'm also aware that case law doesn't agree with me. However, I'm also of the opinion that case law has very little to do with the Constitution, and more to do with the opinion of what judges think the Constitution should be.

The Constitution gives no express power to the federal government to provide health care for anyone, therefore, under the 10th Amendment, socialized health care would have to be unconstitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

We already have a program that provides healthcare for people who do not have the money. It's called Medicaid and Medicare. What is unconstitutional about this new law is forcing people to have coverage who do not want nor need it. It is the loophole that will ensnare the American people in the control trap of the federal Government. If the government is big and powerful enough to give you anything and everything they are also big and powerful enough to take it away. When the enforcement of this new law starts the government will be able to control your life.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

Well it is my opinion that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is unconstitutional, including this health care bill. I'm also aware that case law doesn't agree with me. However, I'm also of the opinion that case law has very little to do with the Constitution, and more to do with the opinion of what judges think the Constitution should be.

The Constitution gives no express power to the federal government to provide health care for anyone, therefore, under the 10th Amendment, socialized health care would have to be unconstitutional.

Agreed. Even if it was constitutional it would be declared null and void because Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of the presidency under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. This bill will be overturned as well as all other legislation he has signed into law because of his ineligibility. It's just a matter of time when he is exposed as a usurper.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

Well it is my opinion that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is unconstitutional, including this health care bill. I'm also aware that case law doesn't agree with me. However, I'm also of the opinion that case law has very little to do with the Constitution, and more to do with the opinion of what judges think the Constitution should be.

The Constitution gives no express power to the federal government to provide health care for anyone, therefore, under the 10th Amendment, socialized health care would have to be unconstitutional.

Agreed. Even if it was constitutional it would be declared null and void because Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of the presidency under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. This bill will be overturned as well as all other legislation he has signed into law because of his ineligibility. It's just a matter of time when he is exposed as a usurper.

Sir I am sorry but the birth certificate issue is just a smoke screen to mask the other things obama and the left are doing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

Well it is my opinion that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is unconstitutional, including this health care bill. I'm also aware that case law doesn't agree with me. However, I'm also of the opinion that case law has very little to do with the Constitution, and more to do with the opinion of what judges think the Constitution should be.

The Constitution gives no express power to the federal government to provide health care for anyone, therefore, under the 10th Amendment, socialized health care would have to be unconstitutional.

Agreed. Even if it was constitutional it would be declared null and void because Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of the presidency under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. This bill will be overturned as well as all other legislation he has signed into law because of his ineligibility. It's just a matter of time when he is exposed as a usurper.

Give me a break. Keep your partisan sour grapes in the Flame Zone or Conspiracy Theory sections where they belong.

 

[Immanuel]

My opinion is that whether or not it is constitutional lies in the hands of the nine Supreme Court Justices at the time that a case reaches them. Until then we have to assume that even if it is bad law, we are stuck with it.

Immie

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My opinion is that whether or not it is constitutional lies in the hands of the nine Supreme Court Justices at the time that a case reaches them. Until then we have to assume that even if it is bad law, we are stuck with it.

Immie

Can a person be arrested without being mirandized?

 

[Immanuel]

My opinion is that whether or not it is constitutional lies in the hands of the nine Supreme Court Justices at the time that a case reaches them. Until then we have to assume that even if it is bad law, we are stuck with it.

Immie

Can a person be arrested without being mirandized?

Actually, yes, they can but then the case against the perpetrator is likely to be lost on a technicality.

Now, what the heck does that have to do with this discussion?

Immie

 

[Modbert]

Agreed. Even if it was constitutional it would be declared null and void because Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of the presidency under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 because he is not a Natural Born Citizen. This bill will be overturned as well as all other legislation he has signed into law because of his ineligibility. It's just a matter of time when he is exposed as a usurper.

Run a entire platform on this argument, please.

As for the OP, valid effort on your part Mani. Be surprised if it works out. Plenty of people at USMB worship many of our founders as lesser Gods and especially worship the Constitution. Of course, what they fail to mention is they worship what they think the constitution means.

As for me, I personally find your OP to be logically acceptable and makes sense.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My opinion is that whether or not it is constitutional lies in the hands of the nine Supreme Court Justices at the time that a case reaches them. Until then we have to assume that even if it is bad law, we are stuck with it.

Immie

Can a person be arrested without being mirandized?

Actually, yes, they can but then the case against the perpetrator is likely to be lost on a technicality.

Now, what the heck does that have to do with this discussion?

Immie

Now lets move this discussion to the "what if" What if you have a certain case that makes it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules aginst the defendent because of an opinion of a justice do the American people have to live with it?

 

[hortysir]

Ground rules:

1. You must agree that this is a discussion of opinions, including your own. If constitutional history shows us anything, at then end of the day all matters of constitionality rest upon the opinion's of men.

I define socialized medicine very simply as spending tax dollars to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it and asks for it. My opinion is that socialized healthcare is absolutely constitutional. If much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well. So unless your position is that much, if not most, of what the federal government funds is also unconstitutional, you really don't have much of a case. And even if that's your case, caselaw kicks your ass (pun intended).

Our Constitution was put into place to limit our Federal Government.
To protect it's constituents' rights.

Not to provide U.S. with a good or service.
Not to mandate it's citizens to but a product or service.

Just because a government does something does not automatically make it right.
Your argument ***** much of what the federal government pays for with public funds is constitutional, then this must be as well***** just doesn't hold water.

The same generalization could be made for the war in Iraq,(since the government did it, it must be okay) but how many have called it un-constitutional?

 

[Immanuel]

Can a person be arrested without being mirandized?

Actually, yes, they can but then the case against the perpetrator is likely to be lost on a technicality.

Now, what the heck does that have to do with this discussion?

Immie

Now lets move this discussion to the "what if" What if you have a certain case that makes it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules aginst the defendent because of an opinion of a justice do the American people have to live with it?

I believe the answer to that is yes, until the Constitution is changed.

Immie

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, yes, they can but then the case against the perpetrator is likely to be lost on a technicality.

Now, what the heck does that have to do with this discussion?

Immie

Now lets move this discussion to the "what if" What if you have a certain case that makes it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules aginst the defendent because of an opinion of a justice do the American people have to live with it?

I believe the answer to that is yes, until the Constitution is changed.

Immie

You know that with the next appointment to the supreme court the healthcare law will not be ruled unconstutional. No matter who is in control of the government.
So if you do not mind read my singnature.
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

 

[Immanuel]

Now lets move this discussion to the "what if" What if you have a certain case that makes it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules aginst the defendent because of an opinion of a justice do the American people have to live with it?

I believe the answer to that is yes, until the Constitution is changed.

Immie

You know that with the next appointment to the supreme court the healthcare law will not be ruled unconstutional. No matter who is in control of the government.
So if you do not mind read my singnature.
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

The point of my first comment though was "when the case arrives before the SCOTUS". I do suspect that with the next appointment the case is sealed, but we don't know what will happen between now and the case being heard.

Immie

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm curious about something. To those who argue that existing precedent and case law are unimportant, invalid, and should be ignored, are you arguing that the Supreme Court should draw upon the power of judicial review to strike down some or all of the health care law as unconstitutional? And if that's the case, how do you reconcile those positions? Judicial review itself isn't a power explicitly given to the courts in the Constitution, it arises from precedent and case law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I believe the answer to that is yes, until the Constitution is changed.

Immie

You know that with the next appointment to the supreme court the healthcare law will not be ruled unconstutional. No matter who is in control of the government.
So if you do not mind read my singnature.
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

The point of my first comment though was "when the case arrives before the SCOTUS". I do suspect that with the next appointment the case is sealed, but we don't know what will happen between now and the case being heard.

Immie

I had a discussion with the person a while back who was a obama supporter, even though he is a big obama supporter he said that the health care coverage bill would never be passed. I told him it would. Guess what I was correct. I am not wrong when I say if kagan is appointed to the supreme court and the healthcare law makes to the high court it will not be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Immanuel]

You know that with the next appointment to the supreme court the healthcare law will not be ruled unconstutional. No matter who is in control of the government.
So if you do not mind read my singnature.
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

The point of my first comment though was "when the case arrives before the SCOTUS". I do suspect that with the next appointment the case is sealed, but we don't know what will happen between now and the case being heard.

Immie

I had a discussion with the person a while back who was a obama supporter, even though he is a big obama supporter he said that the health care coverage bill would never be passed. I told him it would. Guess what I was correct. I am not wrong when I say if kagan is appointed to the supreme court and the healthcare law makes to the high court it will not be ruled unconstitutional.

Are you thinking that I am saying it will be? Did I say that?

Also, we don't know when such a case will arrive before the court. It could literally be months after Kagan takes the bench and maybe not for years. If it is years, who knows what the make up of the court will be?

Immie

 

[manifold]

You know that with the next appointment to the supreme court the healthcare law will not be ruled unconstutional. No matter who is in control of the government.
So if you do not mind read my singnature.
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"

I'm not so sure about Kagan being needed to decide this is constitutional, but as for the rest I think you're 100% correct, inasmuch as it would take a rebellion to get your way on this one. But you need poor people to wage a war. Good luck getting poor people to fight against access to free healthcare.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The point of my first comment though was "when the case arrives before the SCOTUS". I do suspect that with the next appointment the case is sealed, but we don't know what will happen between now and the case being heard.

Immie

I had a discussion with the person a while back who was a obama supporter, even though he is a big obama supporter he said that the health care coverage bill would never be passed. I told him it would. Guess what I was correct. I am not wrong when I say if kagan is appointed to the supreme court and the healthcare law makes to the high court it will not be ruled unconstitutional.

Are you thinking that I am saying it will be? Did I say that?

Also, we don't know when such a case will arrive before the court. It could literally be months after Kagan takes the bench and maybe not for years. If it is years, who knows what the make up of the court will be?

Immie

You seem to act as if you would accept it as law even though it is and should be ruled unconstitutional.
If it presented to the courts after kagans appointment or it takes years to get to the court it will be to late by then. This must be done before 2014.
In my opinion we should not comply.