Please get out your constitution and read about the general welfare clause, the taxing and spending clause... read Alexander Hamilton in the federalist papers, US vs. Butler....
You guys are raving lunatics that have no eduation to back up your meme of "OMG OMG We have a constitution! You're shitting on the constitution!!!!!!111!!!"
Promoting the general welfare and providing for it are 2 different things... and the General Welfare is indeed much different as what was intended to what you are trying to shovel now... Founding fathers never intended for individuals to have their every need taken care of my the government.. try having some education about the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers
I do have some education on the matter. See how I cited some documents - THE constitution itself, the federalist papers (HINT - this provides insight into the intent of the founding fathers) and a supreme court case that greatly expanded the power of the government and applied to this issue.
You on the other hand spout off some nonsense that probably came straight out of your ass and offer up no new evidence other than your lies that the constitution somehow forbids government spending on health care. It expressly allows the government to levy taxes and allocate spending for the public good. There is no shortage of evidence that there is a great amount of public good in ensuring universal healthcare. Look at the H1N1 "swine" flu. Had it been a bigger problem than it was, or perhaps will be should it return in the fall we as an entire nation would all be better off if we knew that people wouldn't avoid the doctor because they are unable to pay. It'd be much easier to contain if everyone had equal access to antivirals. That is a public good. That is a perfectly valid argument in favor of universal healthcare. You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with a valid argument against it.
ROFL... the US Constitution prohibited the increase in power which you cite as a decision of the Supreme Court... and while you erroneously believe that the Judiciary has the 'right' or the means to interpret the constitution anyway they 'feel' they need to, and in so doing TOSS IT OUT THE WINDOW... you're dead ass wrong.
The Judiciary does NOT have such power and the progressives who feel otherwise are, as a result, PART OF THE PROBLEM!
As is noted by another, above; the phrase: '...promote the general welfare' does NOT provide that the RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CAN BE SET ASIDE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE COLLECTIVE.
WHERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION, OR ANY OTHER INSTRUMENT IN THE FOUNDING CHARTER DOES SUCH AN ARGUMENT REST?
Promoting the general welfare is a rhetorical instrument which assigns the US government the power to lobby on behalf of the united states... NOT to confiscate the product of one man's labor to subsidize the existance of another man... and THAT is all we're talking about here. There is NO GREATER point, NO EXPANSION OF THE CONCEPT, NO HIGHER MORAL IMPERATIVE...
YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUALS LABOR... PERIOD.
NONE, NADA, ZIP... ZERO!
And while there are many necessary functions of critical infrastrauture which require the means of the government to assess taxes, which PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE... NONE OF THOSE FUNCTIONS SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ONE MAN OVER THE NEXT... and that is precisely what social entitlements do... and that is why such are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and this without regard for the absurd rationalizations which argue to the contrary.
Now CITE THE ELEMENTS OF THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF THE US FOUNDING CHARTER; WHEREIN THE NEEDS OF THE COLLECTIVE ARE RIGHTFULLY DESIGNATED TO EXIST BEYOND RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND ARE TO BE DRAWN FROM THEIR MEANS...
Either cite the SPECIFIC TEXT or STFU!
Either