28th Amendment to the Constitution

[DGS49]

FIRST: Effective two (2) years from the effective date of ratification of this Amendment, legal residents of the United States shall be entitled to health care, according to the best contemporary standardsof the medical art.

SECOND: Congress shall have the power to enact all laws and make all expenditures necessary to bring Paragraph FIRST to fruition, notwithstanding any possible contradiction with the Tenth Amendment.

Would Bernie Sanders have the balls to introduce such an Amendment?

Anyone else?

Would Democrats in Congress have the balls to vote for it?

 

[The Irish Ram]

THIRD: Congress and Bernie Sanders have no idea who is going to pay for it.

 

[The Irish Ram]

FOURTH: Bernie and Congress shall have the power to meet all expenditures necessary to provide themselves with much better contemporary standards of the medical art.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

28th Amendment to the Constitution

A proposed Amendment doesn't get a number until it's ratified. Whatever the next Amendment is that is made to the Constitution will be the Twenty-Eighth Amendment. There are plenty of other ideas floating around that have a much better chance of becoming the Twenty-Eighth Amendment than the one you've just proposed.

 

[DGS49]

This is why i bring it up: HEALTH CARE is the biggest policy initiative that the Democrats have to work with ( other than legalizing 30 million border-jumpers).

And yet, any manifestation of their dream is unconstitutional, and THIS version of the USSC will shoot it down.

They want Single Payer? They want to make healthcare a Right?

There is only one way for that to happen. A constitutional amendment.

And isn't that appropriate? A major national policy change like that REQUIRES more than a 51-49 vote.

And yet...the Democrats know that they lack the votes, both in Congress and the State legislatures. So they keep dangling these bullshit proposals..."MEDICARE for all", and pretending that it is only Republican obstruction that stands in the way - not the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

We don’t need an amendment to provide universal healthcare

Why won’t republicans support it

 

[Anathema]

If thst were to pass, I would be leaving the USA and giving up my citizenship. Thst is the absolute opposite of what the Constitution was intended for.

 

[rightwinger]

If thst were to pass, I would be leaving the USA and giving up my citizenship. Thst is the absolute opposite of what the Constitution was intended for.

We will miss you

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We don’t need an amendment to provide universal healthcare

Why won’t republicans support it

Where, in the Constitution, is the power delegated to the federal government to provide universal health care?

Hint: It's not. Therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no such power, and would be acting illegally if it were to do so.

Yes, you do need an amendment to provide universal healthcare; at the federal level, at least.

 

[Anathema]

We will miss you

No you won’t. Nor will I miss you, or what this entire country is becoming.

Of course it will make the other 10 people who live in this duplex homeless, but thst will be your problem, not mine.

 

[Pellinore]

We don’t need an amendment to provide universal healthcare

Why won’t republicans support it

Where, in the Constitution, is the power delegated to the federal government to provide universal health care?

Hint: It's not. Therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no such power, and would be acting illegally if it were to do so.

Yes, you do need an amendment to provide universal healthcare; at the federal level, at least.

"The Congress shall have power"
...
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"
...
"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."


It's called the "elastic clause," in Article I, Section 8. It has that name for a reason.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"The Congress shall have power"
...
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"
...
"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."


It's called the "elastic clause," in Article I, Section 8. It has that name for a reason.

No rational reading of it supports the abuse of federal power to meddle in areas where the Constitution does not specifically delegate authority to the federal government. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Tenth Amendment?

 

[JoeB131]

FIRST: Effective two (2) years from the effective date of ratification of this Amendment, legal residents of the United States shall be entitled to health care, according to the best contemporary standardsof the medical art.

SECOND: Congress shall have the power to enact all laws and make all expenditures necessary to bring Paragraph FIRST to fruition, notwithstanding any possible contradiction with the Tenth Amendment.

Would Bernie Sanders have the balls to introduce such an Amendment?

Anyone else?

Would Democrats in Congress have the balls to vote for it?

No, because the Constitution shouldn't be about legislation... it should be about the mechanics of government.

This is why the 18th and 21st Amendments were such a fiasco.

 

[JoeB131]

No rational reading of it supports the abuse of federal power to meddle in areas where the Constitution does not specifically delegate authority to the federal government. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Tenth Amendment?

Again, why are we limiting our thinking to the thoughts of slave rapists who shit in chamber pots and treated colds by bleeding people?

 

[rightwinger]

We don’t need an amendment to provide universal healthcare

Why won’t republicans support it

Where, in the Constitution, is the power delegated to the federal government to provide universal health care?

Hint: It's not. Therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no such power, and would be acting illegally if it were to do so.

Yes, you do need an amendment to provide universal healthcare; at the federal level, at least.

Article 1, Section 1

 

[rightwinger]

We will miss you

No you won’t. Nor will I miss you, or what this entire country is becoming.

Of course it will make the other 10 people who live in this duplex homeless, but thst will be your problem, not mine.

Such a humanitarian

 

[Anathema]

Such a humanitarian

Actually at the moment I pretty much am a humanitarian. There are 13 people living in the 5 bedroom duplex my wife and I currently own. Beyond us there are her parents, 4 of her 5 siblings (all adults), my sil Stephanie’s husband and her four kids.

My income is roughly 35-40% of the money that comes in lot the house on a monthly basis. Especially when you consider only 2 of the 9 adults in the house are employed.

If I were to leave the country, the others would not go with me. On their minimal income they would not be able to keep the house and would end up homeless and on the streets.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If thst were to pass, I would be leaving the USA and giving up my citizenship. Thst is the absolute opposite of what the Constitution was intended for.

No, you wouldn't. You would scream and yell and bitch and piss and moan...and nothing else.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Where, in the Constitution, is the power delegated to the federal government to provide universal health care?

Article 1, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.​

Where, in that sentence, does it say anything about the federal government having any authority to provide health care?

 

[JoeB131]

Where, in that sentence, does it say anything about the federal government having any authority to provide health care?

Yes, we absolutely should let poor people die because they don't have the money to treat easily curable diseases.

After all, it's what Jesus would do.