Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[jillian]

The Constitution only states the powers of the government, it doesn't have to list the rights of the people. That's why the Federalists didn't think a Bill of Rights was necessary. I'm sure you already know this, however.

stop avoiding the question. where in the constitution does it say you have the right to buy ammo?

No where jillian, go ahead and make your point.

the POINT is that for the Court to arrive at the conclusion that you have a right to ammo, it would have to look at the 2nd amendment and see what it intended you to be able to do. it would then have to EXTRAPOLATE that to EFFECTUATE that right, you would have to have the right to ammo.

THAT is constitutional construction... NOT this BS that you "think" the court has been wrong for 200 years.

The arrogance of that is astounding.

 

[jillian]

Is there a record for red herrings and appeals to authority in one thread here??

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)

In other words, you can't respond to any of the points raised.



nice chatting. cya.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

stop avoiding the question. where in the constitution does it say you have the right to buy ammo?

No where jillian, go ahead and make your point.

the POINT is that for the Court to arrive at the conclusion that you have a right to ammo, it would have to look at the 2nd amendment and see what it intended you to be able to do. it would then have to EXTRAPOLATE that to EFFECTUATE that right, you would have to have the right to ammo.

THAT is constitutional construction... NOT this BS that you "think" the court has been wrong for 200 years.

The arrogance of that is astounding.

Or they could look to the 9th amendment.

 

[Oddball]

The arrogance of that is astounding.

2a. Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

* "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

* "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

* "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

* "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

* "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

* "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

Basic Human Psychology 1: Neurosis, Projection and Freudian Projection

 

[jillian]

good that you self-diagnosed. in the meantime, let us know when you have a cogent legal argument to make that doesn't consist of "but i said so".

 

[Oddball]

If I didn't know better, I'd swear that I was talking to tha Malignant™

You two have so much in common it's frightening.

 

[Valerie]

If I didn't know better, I'd swear that I was talking to tha Malignant™

You two have so much in common it's frightening.

You know him well, do ya?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

good that you self-diagnosed. in the meantime, let us know when you have a cogent legal argument to make that doesn't consist of "but i said so".

I would settle for a cogent logical argument!

As a lawyer you obviously are aware of this, but it's always a red flag when someone says that the law/constitution "clearly" supports one side over the other. I can only hope that one day Kevin will realize that there are legal merits to both positions in any such issue.

 

[Oddball]

good that you self-diagnosed. in the meantime, let us know when you have a cogent legal argument to make that doesn't consist of "but i said so".

I would settle for a cogent logical argument!

As a lawyer you obviously are aware of this, but it's always a red flag when someone says that the law/constitution "clearly" supports one side over the other. I can only hope that one day Kevin will realize that there are legal merits to both positions in any such issue.

The cogent logical argument is read for comprehension, and quit pretending that you can "interpret" words to mean the opposite of what those who penned and explained those words meant.

Also. appeals to authority are, by definition, not cogent logical arguments, either.

 

[Dante]

Somewhere, somehow...Both Ayn Rand and George Orwell are looking down and having the biggest laugh!

I will buy this argument. Seeing you run in circles like some kind of Objectivist nitwit spouting double speak must be hilarious to those two.


what is it with you and the need to use old dead people as an authority to justify everything you believe in\?

 

[Old Rocks]

Exactly. Why did they give us the amendment process if the Congress and President could simply pass any law that it wants?

LAws must pass constitutional muster..

sorry

Then we're in agreement. The problem is that the federal government just ignores the Constitution, and getting into the healthcare business is certainly unconstitutional.

You state that it is. I think it is not. So, after the beginning of a real Health Care package is passed, we shall see where the Supreme Court stands. I bet that it never even goes to teh Supreme Court.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Constitution doesn't have to tell me my all my rights.

no... the COURT does.

and if you want those "rights" enforced, you'd better hope and pray it says you have those rights.

i asked you a question. where in the constitution does it say you have the right to buy ammo, you know, since you're all about literalism and all?

The Constitution only states the powers of the government, it doesn't have to list the rights of the people. That's why the Federalists didn't think a Bill of Rights was necessary. I'm sure you already know this, however.

Well, as we can see from the prior administration a Bill of Rights was absolutely neccessary.

 

[Old Rocks]

good that you self-diagnosed. in the meantime, let us know when you have a cogent legal argument to make that doesn't consist of "but i said so".

I would settle for a cogent logical argument!

As a lawyer you obviously are aware of this, but it's always a red flag when someone says that the law/constitution "clearly" supports one side over the other. I can only hope that one day Kevin will realize that there are legal merits to both positions in any such issue.

The cogent logical argument is read for comprehension, and quit pretending that you can "interpret" words to mean the opposite of what those who penned and explained those words meant.

Also. appeals to authority are, by definition, not cogent logical arguments, either.

OK, here is the real arguement. We have 60 Senators and 265 Representatives. If the Supreme Court says what they pass is Constitutional, all of us posters out here in the virtual world will have to live with it until the issue is changed again at the legislative level. And getting used to living without nearly a million Americans a year going bankrupt because of medical bills would be a nice thing.

We are trying a case where a mother and father let their baby daughter die of easily curable infections because doctors were against their religion. I see people like Dude and Kevin as the political stereotypes of that philosophy. Roosevelt tried to get a National Health care plan for the nation's children a hundred years ago, and the same objections were made that are being made today. Time to steamroller right over these dinosaurs just as we did the people that fought civil rights for all citizens of this nation.

 

[GHook93]

The constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either, does that mean it does provide for it?

It's overtly implied in the 4th Amendment.

Implied yes! Directly stated NO! Case law was needed to provide for a constitutional right to privacy!

Griswold v. CT and Roe v. Wade established privacy as protected by the constitution!

In Griswold you have the famous Douglas wrote the famous lines that "a right to privacy can be found in the penumbras (shadows) of the bill of rights!" Specifically, 1st (assembly), 3rd amendment (not housing soldiers), 4th (unlawful search and seizure), 5th (Due process clause and Taking clause) and 9th amendment (rights of the people)!

The point is just because the constitution doesn't state it doesn't mean it can't be inferred. Ask any libertarian and he will hold scared right to privacy, but he WILL NOT be able to show you direct wordage in any part of the constitution that states, "We as American citizens have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY!"

Therefore even thought the constitution doesn't mention health care there are many parts of the constitution were healthcare can be inferred.

Example:
Constitution Preamble:
...provide for the common defense, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty in ourselves and our Posterity...

Section 8 Clause 1 (Powers Granted to Congress):
"The Congress shall have Power to...provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States.

Amendment V:
No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of the law.

Amendment XIV:
Due Process Clause redux, Privilege and Immunity Clause and Equal Protection Clause.


The point is if your argument is that the state shouldn't provide healthcare (something I am not sure I don't support), because that is what the constitution doesn't directly provide for it, then you are wrong. Get a different argument, because there are many rights that we as Americans cherish that are stated directly in the constitution, such as a right to privacy, but are found in the penumbras of the constitution.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy either, does that mean it does provide for it?

It's overtly implied in the 4th Amendment.

Implied yes! Directly stated NO! Case law was needed to provide for a constitutional right to privacy!

Griswold v. CT and Roe v. Wade established privacy as protected by the constitution!

In Griswold you have the famous Douglas wrote the famous lines that "a right to privacy can be found in the penumbras (shadows) of the bill of rights!" Specifically, 1st (assembly), 3rd amendment (not housing soldiers), 4th (unlawful search and seizure), 5th (Due process clause and Taking clause) and 9th amendment (rights of the people)!

The point is just because the constitution doesn't state it doesn't mean it can't be inferred. Ask any libertarian and he will hold scared right to privacy, but he WILL NOT be able to show you direct wordage in any part of the constitution that states, "We as American citizens have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY!"

Therefore even thought the constitution doesn't mention health care there are many parts of the constitution were healthcare can be inferred.

Example:
Constitution Preamble:
...provide for the common defense, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty in ourselves and our Posterity...

Section 8 Clause 1 (Powers Granted to Congress):
"The Congress shall have Power to...provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States.

Amendment V:
No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of the law.

Amendment XIV:
Due Process Clause redux, Privilege and Immunity Clause and Equal Protection Clause.


The point is if your argument is that the state shouldn't provide healthcare (something I am not sure I don't support), because that is what the constitution doesn't directly provide for it, then you are wrong. Get a different argument, because there are many rights that we as Americans cherish that are stated directly in the constitution, such as a right to privacy, but are found in the penumbras of the constitution.

If the founding fathers intended to imply a right of privacy beyond what they explicitly wrote in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments, why didn't they explicitly guarantee this greater right of privacy that the SCOTUS claims to have located in the "penumbra"? Isn't more likely they intended to imply nothing beyond what they explicitly wrote, and the SCOTUS has decided it can manufacture or deny any "right" the Constitution has not explicitly forbidden them to tamper with?

 

[GHook93]

It's overtly implied in the 4th Amendment.

Implied yes! Directly stated NO! Case law was needed to provide for a constitutional right to privacy!

Griswold v. CT and Roe v. Wade established privacy as protected by the constitution!

In Griswold you have the famous Douglas wrote the famous lines that "a right to privacy can be found in the penumbras (shadows) of the bill of rights!" Specifically, 1st (assembly), 3rd amendment (not housing soldiers), 4th (unlawful search and seizure), 5th (Due process clause and Taking clause) and 9th amendment (rights of the people)!

The point is just because the constitution doesn't state it doesn't mean it can't be inferred. Ask any libertarian and he will hold scared right to privacy, but he WILL NOT be able to show you direct wordage in any part of the constitution that states, "We as American citizens have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY!"

Therefore even thought the constitution doesn't mention health care there are many parts of the constitution were healthcare can be inferred.

Example:
Constitution Preamble:
...provide for the common defense, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty in ourselves and our Posterity...

Section 8 Clause 1 (Powers Granted to Congress):
"The Congress shall have Power to...provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States.

Amendment V:
No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of the law.

Amendment XIV:
Due Process Clause redux, Privilege and Immunity Clause and Equal Protection Clause.


The point is if your argument is that the state shouldn't provide healthcare (something I am not sure I don't support), because that is what the constitution doesn't directly provide for it, then you are wrong. Get a different argument, because there are many rights that we as Americans cherish that are stated directly in the constitution, such as a right to privacy, but are found in the penumbras of the constitution.

If the founding fathers intended to imply a right of privacy beyond what they explicitly wrote in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments, why didn't they explicitly guarantee this greater right of privacy that the SCOTUS claims to have located in the "penumbra"? Isn't more likely they intended to imply nothing beyond what they explicitly wrote, and the SCOTUS has decided it can manufacture or deny any "right" the Constitution has not explicitly forbidden them to tamper with?

I have nothing but respect for the founding fathers they were nothing less then geniuses, however, no one can account for everything. They provided freedom of speech, but never set limits! Do you really thing the founding fathers intended to allow people to yell fire in a crowded building causing panic and ultimately dead people. They allowed for free press, but again with no limits, do you think they allowed from careless and knowingly false defamation?

Hell, acknowledged right there in Marbury v. Madison it was basically admitted that the founding fathers neglected to give the Federal Courts powers to hear federal questions. The founding fathers were smart, but no one can create something to incorporate everything. Not to mention that at the birth of the nation, the union was very very fragile and politics still played a part - just see the allowing of slavery!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

LAws must pass constitutional muster..

sorry

Then we're in agreement. The problem is that the federal government just ignores the Constitution, and getting into the healthcare business is certainly unconstitutional.

You state that it is. I think it is not. So, after the beginning of a real Health Care package is passed, we shall see where the Supreme Court stands. I bet that it never even goes to teh Supreme Court.

Can you find for me the passage in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to enact universal healthcare? Keep in mind that the Constitution explicitly states the powers of the federal government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

no... the COURT does.

and if you want those "rights" enforced, you'd better hope and pray it says you have those rights.

i asked you a question. where in the constitution does it say you have the right to buy ammo, you know, since you're all about literalism and all?

The Constitution only states the powers of the government, it doesn't have to list the rights of the people. That's why the Federalists didn't think a Bill of Rights was necessary. I'm sure you already know this, however.

Well, as we can see from the prior administration a Bill of Rights was absolutely neccessary.

The current administration as well.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Implied yes! Directly stated NO! Case law was needed to provide for a constitutional right to privacy!

Griswold v. CT and Roe v. Wade established privacy as protected by the constitution!

In Griswold you have the famous Douglas wrote the famous lines that "a right to privacy can be found in the penumbras (shadows) of the bill of rights!" Specifically, 1st (assembly), 3rd amendment (not housing soldiers), 4th (unlawful search and seizure), 5th (Due process clause and Taking clause) and 9th amendment (rights of the people)!

The point is just because the constitution doesn't state it doesn't mean it can't be inferred. Ask any libertarian and he will hold scared right to privacy, but he WILL NOT be able to show you direct wordage in any part of the constitution that states, "We as American citizens have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY!"

Therefore even thought the constitution doesn't mention health care there are many parts of the constitution were healthcare can be inferred.

Example:
Constitution Preamble:
...provide for the common defense, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty in ourselves and our Posterity...

Section 8 Clause 1 (Powers Granted to Congress):
"The Congress shall have Power to...provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States.

Amendment V:
No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of the law.

Amendment XIV:
Due Process Clause redux, Privilege and Immunity Clause and Equal Protection Clause.


The point is if your argument is that the state shouldn't provide healthcare (something I am not sure I don't support), because that is what the constitution doesn't directly provide for it, then you are wrong. Get a different argument, because there are many rights that we as Americans cherish that are stated directly in the constitution, such as a right to privacy, but are found in the penumbras of the constitution.

If the founding fathers intended to imply a right of privacy beyond what they explicitly wrote in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments, why didn't they explicitly guarantee this greater right of privacy that the SCOTUS claims to have located in the "penumbra"? Isn't more likely they intended to imply nothing beyond what they explicitly wrote, and the SCOTUS has decided it can manufacture or deny any "right" the Constitution has not explicitly forbidden them to tamper with?

I have nothing but respect for the founding fathers they were nothing less then geniuses, however, no one can account for everything. They provided freedom of speech, but never set limits! Do you really thing the founding fathers intended to allow people to yell fire in a crowded building causing panic and ultimately dead people. They allowed for free press, but again with no limits, do you think they allowed from careless and knowingly false defamation?

Hell, acknowledged right there in Marbury v. Madison it was basically admitted that the founding fathers neglected to give the Federal Courts powers to hear federal questions. The founding fathers were smart, but no one can create something to incorporate everything. Not to mention that at the birth of the nation, the union was very very fragile and politics still played a part - just see the allowing of slavery!

That is exactly my point, the founding fathers never intended to solve all our issues/problems in the Constitution, so when the SCOTUS pretends to see rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution in the mysterious "penumbra" they are acting in contempt of the spirit and intention of the founding fathers who clearly intended to leave those matters not explicitly decided in the Constitution to the Congress, the states or the amendment process, not to nine political appointees to divine from the entrails of the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the founding fathers intended to imply a right of privacy beyond what they explicitly wrote in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th amendments, why didn't they explicitly guarantee this greater right of privacy that the SCOTUS claims to have located in the "penumbra"? Isn't more likely they intended to imply nothing beyond what they explicitly wrote, and the SCOTUS has decided it can manufacture or deny any "right" the Constitution has not explicitly forbidden them to tamper with?

I have nothing but respect for the founding fathers they were nothing less then geniuses, however, no one can account for everything. They provided freedom of speech, but never set limits! Do you really thing the founding fathers intended to allow people to yell fire in a crowded building causing panic and ultimately dead people. They allowed for free press, but again with no limits, do you think they allowed from careless and knowingly false defamation?

Hell, acknowledged right there in Marbury v. Madison it was basically admitted that the founding fathers neglected to give the Federal Courts powers to hear federal questions. The founding fathers were smart, but no one can create something to incorporate everything. Not to mention that at the birth of the nation, the union was very very fragile and politics still played a part - just see the allowing of slavery!

That is exactly my point, the founding fathers never intended to solve all our issues/problems in the Constitution, so when the SCOTUS pretends to see rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution in the mysterious "penumbra" they are acting in contempt of the spirit and intention of the founding fathers who clearly intended to leave those matters not explicitly decided in the Constitution to the Congress, the states or the amendment process, not to nine political appointees to divine from the entrails of the Constitution.

Our rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to exist, the 9th Amendment makes that clear.