Opinions about the constitutionality of socialized healthcare

[AllieBaba]

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).

So, we can't argue that it's unconstitutional because the government funds other unconstitutional things?

And you say it must be constitutional because MOST of what the fed gov't funds is constitutional?

That's lame even for you, mani.

But we're all excited you are going to single handedly solve this problem once and for all. You go!

 

[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).

So, we can't argue that it's unconstitutional because the government funds other unconstitutional things?

And you say it must be constitutional because MOST of what the fed gov't funds is constitutional?

That's lame even for you, mani.

But we're all excited you are going to single handedly solve this problem once and for all. You go!

Reading comprehension fail.

 

[rightwinger]

Now THAT'S a stretch


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p131/dewm1/Junk/stretch300.jpg[/IMG[/quote]

Not at all. We are government of the people by the people for the people. What is more basic to the general welfare of the people than their health?[/QUOTE]

So where were all the health care programs in the name of the general welfare prior to 1965? Why did it take almost 200 years for the government to start paying part of peoples' health care costs if Washington, Jefferson, et al. envisioned the government nannying people in the name of the general welfare? Where was universal health care in 1830, 1870, 1930?

The general welfare clause has nothing to do with a welfare, nanny state, but you already knew that because it's been pointed out ad nauseum on this forum time and time again. You are either willfully ignorant or simply don't care and are willing to bastardize the Constitution and our personal freedoms to fulfill your own personal gain and greed. You are the problem in this country, not the solution. You and your like minded ilk are nothing but parasites leaching off the rest of us and you are going to be the downfall of this nation.[/QUOTE]

[I]So where were all the health care programs in the name of the general welfare prior to 1965? [/I]

They wer being blocked by the conservatives and the health insurance companies

[I]Where was universal health care in 1830, 1870, 1930?
[/I]

Healthcare was that they made you as comfortable as possible before you died. Are founding fathers could not have imagined the complexity of modern healthcare

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

This strikes me as overtly contradictory. Is not case law a pretty good leading indicator when it comes to speculating about what judges think the Constitution should be?

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because it is not your perogative as a citizen to declare what is constitutional or unconstitutional. For you to claim so is in fact, ironically, unconstitutional.

No where in the Constitution does it say the people of the U.S. may not declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

Okay, genius, when you get stopped for not wearing a seat belt, you tell them you've declared that law to be unconstitutional so they have no right to ticket you or fine you.

Let us know how that works out.

Seat belt laws are state laws and have nothing to do with the federal constitution.

 

[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.

I agree that forcing people to have coverage (as the current bill does) ought to be ruled unconstitutional ( although I see that as unlikely). But I'm submitting that if they removed the compulsory elements of the bill, and instead simply provided healthcare to the masses, it would not be unconstitutional. Perhaps an economic disaster, but not unconstitutional.

If they took anything from it they could not afford it. It's not going to happen nothing will stop the government from controlling the people,short of a rebillion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because it is not your perogative as a citizen to declare what is constitutional or unconstitutional. For you to claim so is in fact, ironically, unconstitutional.

No where in the Constitution does it say the people of the U.S. may not declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

Okay, genius, when you get stopped for not wearing a seat belt, you tell them you've declared that law to be unconstitutional so they have no right to ticket you or fine you.

Let us know how that works out.

I have been stopped once was given a ticket and had to thrown out of court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

You are at odds with the total history of the United States. Your arguments always go back to the beginning. Yet in the beginning the majority and the courts disagree with you. To have a country you would want, would have us looking very different as a nation. We might never have been able to win WWII or more? Why do you dislike America?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Yes. I have been, Try telling a lawyer you want to fight not being read your rights.

It happens ALL the time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

This strikes me as overtly contradictory. Is not case law a pretty good leading indicator when it comes to speculating about what judges think the Constitution should be?

Isn't that what I said?

actually, it is exactly what you said. And mani admits to being confused?

Is not case law (what judges think the Constitution should be) a pretty good leading indicator when it comes to speculating about what judges think the Constitution should be?

 

[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.

You are at odds with the total history of the United States. Your arguments always go back to the beginning. Yet in the beginning the majority and the courts disagree with you. To have a country you would want, would have us looking very different as a nation. We might never have been able to win WWII or more? Why do you dislike America?

The ever classic "Why do you hate America?" response.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No where in the Constitution does it say the people of the U.S. may not declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

Okay, genius, when you get stopped for not wearing a seat belt, you tell them you've declared that law to be unconstitutional so they have no right to ticket you or fine you.

Let us know how that works out.

Seat belt laws are state laws and have nothing to do with the federal constitution.

If it weren't for the Palinatics you would be the dumbest fuck on this board.

Now you want to tell us that the SCOTUS can't declare a state law unconstitutional.

btw, YOU brought up seat belt laws and constitutionality, you tard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No where in the Constitution does it say the people of the U.S. may not declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

Okay, genius, when you get stopped for not wearing a seat belt, you tell them you've declared that law to be unconstitutional so they have no right to ticket you or fine you.

Let us know how that works out.

Seat belt laws are state laws and have nothing to do with the federal constitution.

So were the handgun bans state laws. How did they get declared unconstitutional if they have nothing to do with the federal constitution?

Entertain us even further with an explanation of that.

 

[Greenbeard]

My personal political opinions are completely irrelevant to what I pointed out.

Well, sort of. You pointed out that on rare occasions the Court has reversed its own precedents. But I'm trying to determine whether you're advocating that.

So where were all the health care programs in the name of the general welfare prior to 1965?

Federal involvement in public health started growing in the late 19th century. As did medicine as a science, for that matter.

 

[Liberty]

10th amendment makes it unconstitutional. That simple.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

10th amendment makes it unconstitutional. That simple.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Okay, genius, when you get stopped for not wearing a seat belt, you tell them you've declared that law to be unconstitutional so they have no right to ticket you or fine you.

Let us know how that works out.

Seat belt laws are state laws and have nothing to do with the federal constitution.

If it weren't for the Palinatics you would be the dumbest fuck on this board.

Now you want to tell us that the SCOTUS can't declare a state law unconstitutional.

btw, YOU brought up seat belt laws and constitutionality, you tard.

Please find for me where I brought up seat belt laws.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Okay, genius, when you get stopped for not wearing a seat belt, you tell them you've declared that law to be unconstitutional so they have no right to ticket you or fine you.

Let us know how that works out.

Seat belt laws are state laws and have nothing to do with the federal constitution.

So were the handgun bans state laws. How did they get declared unconstitutional if they have nothing to do with the federal constitution?

Entertain us even further with an explanation of that.

The Supreme Court believes the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights into the states. I don't agree with the incorporation theory, but that's how they got declared unconstitutional.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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).

I feel that much of what hte federal government pays for with public funds is unconstitutional, therefore socialized medicine is as well.

The only thing the federal government was originally granted constitutional power to tax for is the national defense such as military personell and border security.

The rest is supposed to be up to the individual states.

Yeah yeah yeah dont even go there either...i know we could go down the road of "indivdual states leads to slavery" (the typical comment) but you said this was supposed to be my opinion and there you have it.

I find the fact that we have strayed from the strict restrictions of power for the federal governmnet placed on it during our founding is what has led to the majority of our troubles as a nation.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

You are at odds with the total history of the United States. Your arguments always go back to the beginning. Yet in the beginning the majority and the courts disagree with you. To have a country you would want, would have us looking very different as a nation. We might never have been able to win WWII or more? Why do you dislike America?

The Constitution means today exactly what it meant when it was written over 200 years ago. They provided us with a process for amending it to fit the changing times. They did not say that judges could just change the meaning of what the Constitution says at their mere whim to satisfy their own political ideology.