Public Option is Unconstitutional

[NYcarbineer]

What is unconstitutional is the government forcing people to buy insurance. And not just any insurance but the insurance they tell us is "acceptable"

What's next, the government telling us we have to buy "acceptable" cars, "acceptable" food and clothes, "acceptable" homes?

Oh and don't forget that if we don't buy what the government tells us to buy we get fined or thrown in jail.

We already have all sorts of regulation on cars, food, homes, and even to some extent clothes. And lo and behold, it hasn't brought on the end of the world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and many federal programs are NOT Constitutional. All you need to do is look at the original Constitution with the first ten Amendments to see that. No mention of any of these social progarms. Once the sixteenth amendment was passed, to help pay for war, it became obivous to Congress they could expand government with this revenue increase.

In the beginning, the Constitution protected life (through common defense), liberty (through our God given rights) and pursuit of happpiness (control of your personal and business affairs). Redistributing wealth is not even close to meeting these goals. Constitutionally protected rights to pursue your own wealth is. The framers would have seen redistribution of wealth for what it is...legalized stealing. Before one of the liberals jumps in here and attempts to refute this, the Revolution started because of the King limiting rights of those in America and taxation without representation remember? Those folks were keenly aware of what a tax meant.

Social Security was declared Constitutional in the 1930's, for starters.

 

[JimH52]

Government is responsible for the welfare of the people. Isn't health care an important aspect of the "welfare of the people?" It seems to me that if Government wasn't doing everything it could to assure equitable access to health care, it would be irresponsible and even negligent on their part.

 

[JimH52]

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and many federal programs are NOT Constitutional. All you need to do is look at the original Constitution with the first ten Amendments to see that. No mention of any of these social progarms. Once the sixteenth amendment was passed, to help pay for war, it became obivous to Congress they could expand government with this revenue increase.

In the beginning, the Constitution protected life (through common defense), liberty (through our God given rights) and pursuit of happpiness (control of your personal and business affairs). Redistributing wealth is not even close to meeting these goals. Constitutionally protected rights to pursue your own wealth is. The framers would have seen redistribution of wealth for what it is...legalized stealing. Before one of the liberals jumps in here and attempts to refute this, the Revolution started because of the King limiting rights of those in America and taxation without representation remember? Those folks were keenly aware of what a tax meant.

Social Security was declared Constitutional in the 1930's, for starters.

So maybe the GOP has found its new cause, to kill Social Security...NICE!

 

[Thinman]

It's the mandate. It's the public mandate that is the problem. How can government force Americans to purchase health care? This is ridiculous!! Next year, government will mandate that you spend 5% of your net income in some form of green energy. What will they mandate in 2011? Oh, I know. They will mandate 50 hours of community service per year for each and every American citizen.

Anybody else with an idea of mandates to come?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and many federal programs are NOT Constitutional. All you need to do is look at the original Constitution with the first ten Amendments to see that. No mention of any of these social progarms. Once the sixteenth amendment was passed, to help pay for war, it became obivous to Congress they could expand government with this revenue increase.

In the beginning, the Constitution protected life (through common defense), liberty (through our God given rights) and pursuit of happpiness (control of your personal and business affairs). Redistributing wealth is not even close to meeting these goals. Constitutionally protected rights to pursue your own wealth is. The framers would have seen redistribution of wealth for what it is...legalized stealing. Before one of the liberals jumps in here and attempts to refute this, the Revolution started because of the King limiting rights of those in America and taxation without representation remember? Those folks were keenly aware of what a tax meant.

Social Security was declared Constitutional in the 1930's, for starters.

So maybe the GOP has found its new cause, to kill Social Security...NICE!

Yes, make ending Social Security and Medicare the centerpiece of their 2010/2012 campaigns.

 

[JimH52]

What is unconstitutional is the government forcing people to buy insurance. And not just any insurance but the insurance they tell us is "acceptable"

What's next, the government telling us we have to buy "acceptable" cars, "acceptable" food and clothes, "acceptable" homes?

Oh and don't forget that if we don't buy what the government tells us to buy we get fined or thrown in jail.

Its called the "welfare of the state."

That is how government can:

-mandate that we wear seat belts
-mandate that we stop at red lights
-mandate zoning so that no one builds a copper smelting plant next to your residentially zoned property
-mandate that the structure you build is not a hazard to you or other persons

Think about it...

 

[JimH52]

Social Security was declared Constitutional in the 1930's, for starters.

So maybe the GOP has found its new cause, to kill Social Security...NICE!

Yes, make ending Social Security and Medicare the centerpiece of their 2010/2012 campaigns.

I think they should place that goal in their platform right now!

 

[Ame®icano]

Nancy Pelosi thinks constitutional issues are no big deal.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi avoided answering the question, probably because she doesn’t have an answer. Her spokesman said that it was “not a serious question,” but if so, one would presume that Pelosi or her office could provide an easily-corroborated answer. After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority. It’s not exactly a lengthy document. How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Pelosi: Constitutionality of individual mandates not “serious” question

I think the what Patrick Leahy asking Pelosi was getting at is - where does the constitution give the authority to mandate that somebody has healthcare. Not that they would setup a government option, that they want to force people to buy some form of healthcare, and they are hoping it'll be theirs.

I think that’s a point that often gets lost in the arguments, they want to force you to buy healthcare of some form. The government option would likely be cheaper for awhile, so naturally they assume that most people would buy their plan if forced to buy a plan. Also I think they assume that a lot of people would abandon or be forced off their current plans and go for the government option.

People want to know what gives federal government the power to force people to buy healthcare, or to buy anything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All of health care reform short of allowing people to by insurance policies across state lines should be unconstitutional as well.

How about using American tax dollars to build hospitals in Iraq? Is that unconstitutional in your world?

 

[DavidS]

The proposed health care legislation and the deathboard-public option is being compared to the post office and if that is so why doesn't the public option need a constitutional amendment like the post office needs in order for it to exist. Shouldn't we go the constitutional route first with this and create an amendment for it just like the post office and federal created roads?

Very interesting opinion. By the way, where did you receive your degree in constitutional law?

 

[JimH52]

This is my last post in tihs thread.

Welfare and the Constitution.

The major objective of WELFARE AND THE CONSTITUTION is to argue for a “welfarist” or positive vision of governmental obligation under the U.S. Constitution as articulated by Abraham Lincoln and the authors of the FEDERALIST PAPERS. James Madison’s belief that the “real welfare” of the people must be the “supreme object” of constitutional government is the bedrock principle animating this superb work.

Some of you may not understand this. Sorry...

 

[Contumacious]

This is my last post in tihs thread.

Welfare and the Constitution.

The major objective of WELFARE AND THE CONSTITUTION is to argue for a “welfarist” or positive vision of governmental obligation under the U.S. Constitution as articulated by Abraham Lincoln and the authors of the FEDERALIST PAPERS. James Madison’s belief that the “real welfare” of the people must be the “supreme object” of constitutional government is the bedrock principle animating this superb work.

Some of you may not understand this. Sorry...

Welfare back them did not mean that the government could steal from "A" in order to support "B".

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious, yes, the government may tax you. Yes, it is constitutional. Yes, you are wrong. And, finally, you are getting quite boring. Try a new act.

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious, yes, the government may tax you. Yes, it is constitutional. Yes, you are wrong. And, finally, you are getting quite boring. Try a new act.

Yes, that authority was granted in order to support those activities constitutionally enumerated . None of which is to support parasites.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Contumacious, yes, the government may tax you. Yes, it is constitutional. Yes, you are wrong. And, finally, you are getting quite boring. Try a new act.

Yes, that authority was granted in order to support those activities constitutionally enumerated . None of which is to support parasites.

.

Is the rebuilding of Iraq, with US taxpayer dollars, unconstitutional?

 

[California Girl]

Government is responsible for the welfare of the people. Isn't health care an important aspect of the "welfare of the people?" It seems to me that if Government wasn't doing everything it could to assure equitable access to health care, it would be irresponsible and even negligent on their part.

"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

General welfare was never meant to be a catch-all phrase for the Government to force any crap it wants down our throats because they decide it is good for us. We are a free people.... at least, we used to be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quote Hamilton, CG, and you will be much closer to reality. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions and the Nullfication Doctrine have long been supplanted by the welfare and implied clause doctrines. Your version of the political compact ended like the South and Edmund Ruffin.

 

[MajikMyst]

Government is responsible for the welfare of the people. Isn't health care an important aspect of the "welfare of the people?" It seems to me that if Government wasn't doing everything it could to assure equitable access to health care, it would be irresponsible and even negligent on their part.

"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

General welfare was never meant to be a catch-all phrase for the Government to force any crap it wants down our throats because they decide it is good for us. We are a free people.... at least, we used to be.

Wow, you neotards sure are stupid!! Care to make the arguement that our health isn't part of welfare?? Your right it isn't a catch all.. But our health is most certianly part of our welfare..

You are a free person.. You are free to be a complete idiot.. You are free to spread misinformation to others and free to argue your feelings and opinions.. That doesn't make you right and doesn't make you any less of an idiot..

When the federal government demands that we all have to be a leafguard system for the gudders on our houses, Then maybe you would have an arguement.. Since it would be hard to say how a leafguard system would be good for our welfare.. But our healthcare?? That is DIRECTLY tied to our welfare..

The public option is not unconstitutional.. It is in no way a against the constitution.. You people are just morons!! There is simply no arguement to make to say that it is unconstitutional..

 

[obama2ndterm]

Is very clearly Constitutional,
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's right there in the first sentence.You have no topic so move on!