Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

[Yurt]

bonus question:

why hasn't the scotus ruled against fdr programs? and why did they give so much unfettered power to the vague term "general welfare"?

what really happened to make the court change its mind?

 

[Yurt]

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

 

[Bern80]

bonus question:

why hasn't the scotus ruled against fdr programs? and why did they give so much unfettered power to the vague term "general welfare"?

what really happened to make the court change its mind?

Uuuuuummmm same reason Dude gave last time. I guess maybe this needs to be explained on a kidnergarten level. The Supreme COURT is presided over by judges. The role of a judge is to hear cases. They aren't a committee. They don't have the pervue to sit all day and run through laws deciding if they are constitutional. They can only rule on what is brought before them.

 

[Bern80]

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.

You can use 'by defintion' all you like and pretend it's the final word, but it isn't. You have a problem seperating absolute truth from what the court decides. The intent of the constitution does not change as the court's opinion about it has. Again if they always get it right regarding the constitutionality of an issue obviously every decision would be unanimous. The very fact that there are split decisions shows that absolute truth of what is constitutional can be different than whay they say is constitutional.

 

[Yurt]

bonus question:

why hasn't the scotus ruled against fdr programs? and why did they give so much unfettered power to the vague term "general welfare"?

what really happened to make the court change its mind?

Uuuuuummmm same reason Dude gave last time. I guess maybe this needs to be explained on a kidnergarten level. The Supreme COURT is presided over by judges. The role of a judge is to hear cases. They aren't a committee. They don't have the pervue to sit all day and run through laws deciding if they are constitutional. They can only rule on what is brought before them.

i was talking about court packing. scotus was going to rule against fdr expansion of federal powers, so fdr threatened to pack the court, scotus backed down and ruled in favor of fdr

 

[maineman]

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.

You can use 'by defintion' all you like and pretend it's the final word, but it isn't. You have a problem seperating absolute truth from what the court decides. The intent of the constitution does not change as the court's opinion about it has. Again if they always get it right regarding the constitutionality of an issue obviously every decision would be unanimous. The very fact that there are split decisions shows that absolute truth of what is constitutional can be different than whay they say is constitutional.

the fact of the matter is: a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.

Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.

ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.

 

[Bern80]

bonus question:

why hasn't the scotus ruled against fdr programs? and why did they give so much unfettered power to the vague term "general welfare"?

what really happened to make the court change its mind?

Uuuuuummmm same reason Dude gave last time. I guess maybe this needs to be explained on a kidnergarten level. The Supreme COURT is presided over by judges. The role of a judge is to hear cases. They aren't a committee. They don't have the pervue to sit all day and run through laws deciding if they are constitutional. They can only rule on what is brought before them.

i was talking about court packing. scotus was going to rule against fdr expansion of federal powers, so fdr threatened to pack the court, scotus backed down and ruled in favor of fdr

Doesn't that also prove that the truth of whether something is constiutional is different from how the court may rule on it?

 

[Oddball]

the fact of the matter is: a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.

Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.

ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.

Using that inane argument, one could argue that murder isn't wrong until you get caught and convicted.

 

[maineman]

the fact of the matter is: a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.

Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.

ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.

Using that inane argument, one could argue that murder isn't wrong until you get caught and convicted.

we weren't talking about "wrong", though, were we?

We were talking about "unconstitutional"

perhaps you should stick to My Weekly Reader

 

[Oddball]

What we're talking about is shameless authoritarian political hacks, like you, splitting hairs on semantics and pulling any silly excuse, no matter how intellectually vapid, out of their asses to rationalize their abject despotism.

And you just provided another smashing example.

 

[Yurt]

the fact of the matter is: a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.

Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.

ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.

Using that inane argument, one could argue that murder isn't wrong until you get caught and convicted.

exactly

further, there is also the issue of when something is unconstitutional on its face, though scotus has not ruled such a law unconstitutional, it can be disregarded if the law is unconsitutional on its face....and the president has such a duty

 

[Zona]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

They said medicare was unconstitutional. In fact, if you look hard enough, every single thing they are saying about Obama healthcare, they said about medicare and social security.

ONCE AGAIN, THE REPUBLICANS WILL GO DOWN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. Once again.

 

[Yurt]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

They said medicare was unconstitutional. In fact, if you look hard enough, every single thing they are saying about Obama healthcare, they said about medicare and social security.

ONCE AGAIN, THE REPUBLICANS WILL GO DOWN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. Once again.

see court packing and the erosion of an independent scotus

 

[Zona]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

Who is it that is making that argument?

Rush, hannity, beck, all their fans and the idiots in here.


If you have insurance, this wont affect you in the least bit. Well, it will change the costs eventually. It will be lower because of COMPETITION.

Did you enjoy your last rate hike?

 

[Bern80]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

They said medicare was unconstitutional. In fact, if you look hard enough, every single thing they are saying about Obama healthcare, they said about medicare and social security.

ONCE AGAIN, THE REPUBLICANS WILL GO DOWN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. Once again.

Just because those things made it into law doesn't mean they still aren't unconstitutional. It just means some administration chose to ignore it.

 

[Bern80]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

Who is it that is making that argument?

Rush, hannity, beck, all their fans and the idiots in here.


If you have insurance, this wont affect you in the least bit. Well, it will change the costs eventually. It will be lower because of COMPETITION.

Did you enjoy your last rate hike?

Libs like yourself only now how to solve problems one way; let government do it. This despite the track record of government's overwhelming ineffeciency and ineptness at running anything. This doesn't need to be politcal at all. There are simply efficient ways to spend money and inefficient ways to spend money. People spending other people's money on other people is one of the least efficient ways to spend money. That also happens to be the only way government has the ability to spend money. In the long run most everything government monkeys with has failed as a result of governmenet monkeying with it.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

Just in case no one pointed it out - Medicare IS unconstitutional. But all the socialists like it too much to let it go.

 

[maineman]

the fact of the matter is: a law is not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. And if they say that separate but equal is NOT unconstitutional (as they did in Plessy 1896) then it is NOT... and if, 58 years later nine new justices decide that is IS (as they did in Brown in 1954) they is IS.

Much like pitches in baseball... there are good pitches and bad pitches, but they only get called balls or strikes by the home plate umpire.

ergo: until SCOTUS declares something to be unconstitutional, it isn't.

Using that inane argument, one could argue that murder isn't wrong until you get caught and convicted.

exactly

further, there is also the issue of when something is unconstitutional on its face, though scotus has not ruled such a law unconstitutional, it can be disregarded if the law is unconsitutional on its face....and the president has such a duty

and again.... yurt uses faulty nightschool logic and equates "wrong" with "Unconstitutional"

Further, are you really suggesting that medicare is unconstitutional on its face, yet it has been allowed to exist unconstitutionally for 45 years and nine presidential administrations?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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?

It says congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and the common defence. If they didn't MEAN Congress to have that power then why would they put that in there?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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

I don't have to. The first clause in Article I Section 8 clearly gives Congress the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. If Congress decides health care is part of the general welfare then it is.

ooookaaay. What's your point?

I guess my point is that Congress gas 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. That's all.

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.

Taxing and spending for the general welfare is. Do you understand what words mean?

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?

Jefferson doesn't have a vote in the U.S. Congress, it hardly matters if he would have wanted it or not. But its pretty clear that he would have thought it constitutional to levy a tax and spend it on health care.