Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

[SpidermanTuba]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

 

[uscitizen]

Hmm this could be interesting.

 

[jillian]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

there's no such thing as "obamacare" and neither the plans that are in the works nor medicare are unconstitutional.

 

[Christopher]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

Who is it that is making that argument?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

there's no such thing as "obamacare" and neither the plans that are in the works nor medicare are unconstitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress isn't authorized to run, regulate, or subsidize our health care. Because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't expressly authorize it to do, federal intervention in health care is unconstitutional.

This is not an anachronistic interpretation of the Constitution, unless undertanding basic English is also anachronistic. Yes, the Supreme Court hasn't struck down unconstitutional programs such as Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit , but that's neither here nor there. For decades, the Supreme Court held that segregation was constitutional, and then, one day, poof! it wasn't. The Supreme Court does as the Supreme Court wants, not what the Constitution says.

The Partial Observer - The Tenth Amendment is the Best Medicine

 

[Bern80]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

there's no such thing as "obamacare" and neither the plans that are in the works nor medicare are unconstitutional.

then prove it oh wise lawyer of the boards. Government forcing people to purchase insurance is constitutional? Can't wait to here your CONSTITUTIONAL justification for that one.

Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do. Now anyone with a brain or one not being deliberately obtuse needs to ask themselves 'gee, why did our founders write such a specific list'? Maybe because the framers actually had a clue and realized it would be far easier to write a short list of the things the fed can do with the clear implication that if it isn't on the list the fed can't do it (hence the 10th ammendment), then it would be to try and dream up everything they wanted to prevent the fed from being able to do.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

Medicare is NOT Constitutional.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Under the Constitution, Congress isn't authorized to run, regulate, or subsidize our health care. Because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't expressly authorize it to do, federal intervention in health care is unconstitutional.

Wrong, the Congress clearly has the power to levy taxes for the purposes of providing for the general welfare.


Article I
Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Yes, the Supreme Court hasn't struck down unconstitutional programs such as Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit

Oh, in fact, it is here, and its everywhere. By your tone I take it you're retired and presently enjoying the benefits of these socialist unconstitutional programs.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.

This is the first clause of article I section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;


It says right there congress can tax to provide for the general welfare.

So you're wrong.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

Medicare is NOT Constitutional.

Why not?

 

[Bern80]

Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.

This is the first clause of article I section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;


It says right there congress can tax to provide for the general welfare.

So you're wrong.

I am well aware of the opening clause. Of course being the dishonest lib you are you failed to have the balls to post the rest of it.

I am also well aware that the libs of has 'general welfare' as an excuse to basically do whatever they want, which is far from what the framers intended. Evidence of which can be found in the federalist papers. Again one has to be being purposely obtuse to ignore the context of this section of the constitution. The framers certainly good have just left that clause and done no more with that section. But they didn't. That clause is followed by more than a dozen very specific duties granted to the fed. Deny all you like but the intent of the framers in doing so was so that the fed would have limited power.

People like yourself lack a basic understanding of why the constution was written the way it was. You miss the nuance of it and smart a document it truly is. You have to consider the perspective of the time and where the framers more recent ancestors had come from. They intentionally and specifically limited the power of the federal government so that things they fled from in Europe couldn't happen here. They simply overlooked the fact that people like yourself would be intellectually dishonest in interpreting it despite us knowing how they meant for it to be interpreted. They didn't count on our society devolving into a group immediate gratification seeking, future sacrificing piss ants.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I am well aware of the opening clause. Of course being the dishonest lib you are you failed to have the balls to post the rest of it.

I had assumed the Constitution was something most readers could find on their own.

And its not an "opening clause", its an enumerated power.

In its entirety, to show you I have balls:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You'll note that each enumerated power of the Congress begins with the capitalized word "To" The FIRST of those enumerated powers is

"To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Take a look at the original http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/slurp_file.php?fileref=4

The "T" in the "To" preceding every enumerated power is very large and stylized - and in the original, immediately after the phrase "The Congress Shall have the Power" there is a SPACE - and then the exact same "To" that begins every other enumerated power.

I am also well aware that the libs of has 'general welfare' as an excuse to basically do whatever they want, which is far from what the framers intended. Evidence of which can be found in the federalist papers.

I thought the Constitution was written in plain English that did not need interpretation? Why would we need to look to the Federalist Papers if they wrote it in a way that doesn't require interpretation?

Again one has to be being purposely obtuse to ignore the context of this section of the constitution. The framers certainly good have just left that clause and done no more with that section. But they didn't. That clause is followed by more than a dozen very specific duties granted to the fed. Deny all you like but the intent of the framers in doing so was so that the fed would have limited power.

You're absolutely right, and in the first enumerated power, the federal government is allowed to collect taxes for the purposes of the general welfare. That's a specific power. It doesn't mean they can pass ANY law for the general welfare, only tax laws.

Since you like to use the Founders, see Thomas Jefferson:

“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.“ [Writings of Thomas Jefferson ,Library Edition, 1904, 147–149.]

People like yourself lack a basic understanding of why the constution was written the way it was. You miss the nuance of it and smart a document it truly is.

Boy aren't you a self righteous snob! Shouldn't you be busy smelling your own farts?

They simply overlooked the fact that people like yourself would be intellectually dishonest in interpreting it despite us knowing how they meant for it to be interpreted.

You mean, people like myself, who intepret it like THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE 3RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WRITER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE interprets it? Yeah - we're nutballs!

 

[Oddball]

I am also well aware that the libs of has 'general welfare' as an excuse to basically do whatever they want, which is far from what the framers intended. Evidence of which can be found in the federalist papers.

I thought the Constitution was written in plain English that did not need interpretation? Why would we need to look to the Federalist Papers if they wrote it in a way that doesn't require interpretation?

Maybe because the framers had an intuition that smarmy know-it-all authoritarian thugs would do their dead-level best to interpret "general welfare" as generally as they possibly could, more than likely to their particular political benefit?

 

[Bern80]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Then it should be very easy for you to show me things like 'TO provide health care' and 'TO require people have health insurance'.

You'll note that each enumerated power of the Congress begins with the capitalized word "To" The FIRST of those enumerated powers is

"To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Take a look at the original http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/slurp_file.php?fileref=4

The "T" in the "To" preceding every enumerated power is very large and stylized - and in the original, immediately after the phrase "The Congress Shall have the Power" there is a SPACE - and then the exact same "To" that begins every other enumerated power.

ooookaaay. What's your point?

I thought the Constitution was written in plain English that did not need interpretation? Why would we need to look to the Federalist Papers if they wrote it in a way that doesn't require interpretation?

I thought so too. That list tells the fed what it can do. Provide health care and force people to purchase insurance aren't on the list, so the fed can't do it. I agree. Pretty simple.

You mean, people like myself, who intepret it like THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE 3RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WRITER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE interprets it? Yeah - we're nutballs!

You're intellectually honest? That's a laugh. Tell me oh intellectually honest one. You really mean to tell me Jefferson wouldn't have a problem with the fed REQUIRING people to purchase health care? That he wouldn't have a problem with the fed subsidizing and running a public option?

 

[jillian]

Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.

This is the first clause of article I section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;


It says right there congress can tax to provide for the general welfare.

So you're wrong.

I don't think I've ever seen him correct about anything.

 

[maineman]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

Medicare is NOT Constitutional.

Why not?

more to the point.... "Says WHO?"

Has SCOTUS ever said that Medicare was unconstitutional? If not, then, BY DEFINITION, it is not unconstitutional.

 

[Bern80]

Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.

This is the first clause of article I section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;


It says right there congress can tax to provide for the general welfare.

So you're wrong.

I don't think I've ever seen him correct about anything.

Thanks for adding to the conversation. The question remains why can't anyone be honest about this? If it was the intent of the framers to allow the concept of general welfare to truly be interpreted generally thus granting the fed the ability to make any half ass claim it wants to for 'general welfare' for the purpose of collecting taxes, why on earth would they follow that clause with a hughly SPECIFIC list (as in NOT general) of the things they wanted the fed to be able to do?

I prefer James Madison's take on the issue who essentially notes exactly as I do that anyone who tries to pretend that 'collect taxes......for the general welfare' doesn't refer specifcally to the list immediatley following it is being purposefully obtuse and and dishonest.

Federalist 41: James Madison

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 defence 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 defence 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 by 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. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

As far as Obama's position that everyone be required to purchase insureance, that can't even remotely be argued as a matter of tax collection for the general welfare because it deosn't require the collection of taxes to impose. That particular postion speaks directly to the list of specific enumerations.

 

[Bern80]

Medicare is NOT Constitutional.

Why not?

more to the point.... "Says WHO?"

Has SCOTUS ever said that Medicare was unconstitutional? If not, then, BY DEFINITION, it is not unconstitutional.

Wrong. They are the last word on the issue. That doesn't mean their word is right. If the supreme court always got it right in terms of whether something is constitutional there would never be a split decision on anything.

 

[Oddball]

I don't believe SCOTUS has ever ruled because suit hasn't been filed.

Gubmint has basically been playing "we'll do as we please and you can sue if you don't like it" since FDR.

 

[maineman]

Why not?

more to the point.... "Says WHO?"

Has SCOTUS ever said that Medicare was unconstitutional? If not, then, BY DEFINITION, it is not unconstitutional.

Wrong. They are the last word on the issue. That doens't mean their word is right. If the supreme court always got it right in terms of whether something is constitutional there would never be a split decisions on anything.

the supreme court is, by definition, ALWAYS "right" when it comes to determining the constitutionality of statutes.