Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[GHook93]

Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

That is really a convenient doublt talk. Who makes up the government people! It prevents PEOPLE (along with the government) from infringing on peoples right to speech and press! If an office conducts an unreasonable search and seizure, its a PERSON who is prevented from doing this!

 

[jillian]

I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.

The Constitution "lives and breathes" no more than a contract does. You enforce the Constitution in the same way you enforce a contract. You don't change the terms of a contract because they become inconvenient for one party or the other and the same goes for the Constitution. The parties in both cases have the ability to amend what is in the document. If they are no longer satisfied with the contents of the four corners of the agreement, then they should avail themselves of the amendment process.

That said, is health care an item than can be shoe honed somewhere in Article I, Section 8? (or anywhere else). I don't think so. I think it is an impermissible expansion of federal power. (Leaving aside whether it's a good or bad thing to do). Madison was quite clear on how Article I, Section 8 should be read at the bottom of Federalist 41.

I suppose health care can be shoved down our throat by some additional specious construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Since Wicker v. Filburn, limitation on federal power has been meaningless. But, it is important to remember that the character of the government that was set up by the Constitution was federal. That power given to the national government was limited and constrained.

On a philosophical level, when we violate the nature of the compact that created the social contract by unceasingly thwarting the constraints on federal power, we endanger the existence of that social contract. I believe we do so at our peril. But perhaps I think more of the intellect of common people than I should. Maybe they'll stay asleep while they are robbed of their birth-right and subjugated.

do you still have my response? i did, but then got delete happy and ended up getting rid of the discussion by accident. ;oS

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

What, in Article I, Section 8, do you think gives the government the ability to do "almost anything?"

And what I actually said was that the government has the ability to spend its tax revenue on "almost anything."

 

[Tech_Esq]

I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.

The Constitution "lives and breathes" no more than a contract does. You enforce the Constitution in the same way you enforce a contract. You don't change the terms of a contract because they become inconvenient for one party or the other and the same goes for the Constitution. The parties in both cases have the ability to amend what is in the document. If they are no longer satisfied with the contents of the four corners of the agreement, then they should avail themselves of the amendment process.

That said, is health care an item than can be shoe honed somewhere in Article I, Section 8? (or anywhere else). I don't think so. I think it is an impermissible expansion of federal power. (Leaving aside whether it's a good or bad thing to do). Madison was quite clear on how Article I, Section 8 should be read at the bottom of Federalist 41.

I suppose health care can be shoved down our throat by some additional specious construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Since Wicker v. Filburn, limitation on federal power has been meaningless. But, it is important to remember that the character of the government that was set up by the Constitution was federal. That power given to the national government was limited and constrained.

On a philosophical level, when we violate the nature of the compact that created the social contract by unceasingly thwarting the constraints on federal power, we endanger the existence of that social contract. I believe we do so at our peril. But perhaps I think more of the intellect of common people than I should. Maybe they'll stay asleep while they are robbed of their birth-right and subjugated.

do you still have my response? i did, but then got delete happy and ended up getting rid of the discussion by accident. ;oS

LOL....yes. Do you want me to post it or send it to you so you can?

 

[jillian]

Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.

Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?

Here in case u need a link The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

y'all still aren't getting it.. THAT isn't the way one determines what is and isn't constitutional. please tell us what caselaw you assert in support of your position?

 

[jillian]

I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.

The Constitution "lives and breathes" no more than a contract does. You enforce the Constitution in the same way you enforce a contract. You don't change the terms of a contract because they become inconvenient for one party or the other and the same goes for the Constitution. The parties in both cases have the ability to amend what is in the document. If they are no longer satisfied with the contents of the four corners of the agreement, then they should avail themselves of the amendment process.

That said, is health care an item than can be shoe honed somewhere in Article I, Section 8? (or anywhere else). I don't think so. I think it is an impermissible expansion of federal power. (Leaving aside whether it's a good or bad thing to do). Madison was quite clear on how Article I, Section 8 should be read at the bottom of Federalist 41.

I suppose health care can be shoved down our throat by some additional specious construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Since Wicker v. Filburn, limitation on federal power has been meaningless. But, it is important to remember that the character of the government that was set up by the Constitution was federal. That power given to the national government was limited and constrained.

On a philosophical level, when we violate the nature of the compact that created the social contract by unceasingly thwarting the constraints on federal power, we endanger the existence of that social contract. I believe we do so at our peril. But perhaps I think more of the intellect of common people than I should. Maybe they'll stay asleep while they are robbed of their birth-right and subjugated.

do you still have my response? i did, but then got delete happy and ended up getting rid of the discussion by accident. ;oS

LOL....yes. Do you want me to post it or send it to you so you can?

if you don't mind, it would be great if you'd send it to me. thanks so much.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.

Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?

Offhand, I can think of two places: Article 1, Section 8, and the 16th amendment. These appear to cover most situations.

(I hope you don't mind my conserving bandwidth by using only those two references.)

Is this what you are referring to? 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;

If so I agree but you must also understand that under section 8 the taxes must be equal for all income classes making the current system unconstitional.

I've heard theories that ammendment 16 wasn't ratified properly, then again i've heard theories that Bush planned 9/11

 

[jillian]

I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.

The Constitution "lives and breathes" no more than a contract does. You enforce the Constitution in the same way you enforce a contract. You don't change the terms of a contract because they become inconvenient for one party or the other and the same goes for the Constitution. The parties in both cases have the ability to amend what is in the document. If they are no longer satisfied with the contents of the four corners of the agreement, then they should avail themselves of the amendment process.

That said, is health care an item than can be shoe honed somewhere in Article I, Section 8? (or anywhere else). I don't think so. I think it is an impermissible expansion of federal power. (Leaving aside whether it's a good or bad thing to do). Madison was quite clear on how Article I, Section 8 should be read at the bottom of Federalist 41.

I suppose health care can be shoved down our throat by some additional specious construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Since Wicker v. Filburn, limitation on federal power has been meaningless. But, it is important to remember that the character of the government that was set up by the Constitution was federal. That power given to the national government was limited and constrained.

On a philosophical level, when we violate the nature of the compact that created the social contract by unceasingly thwarting the constraints on federal power, we endanger the existence of that social contract. I believe we do so at our peril. But perhaps I think more of the intellect of common people than I should. Maybe they'll stay asleep while they are robbed of their birth-right and subjugated.

you know i have a more expansive view of the federal government because i don't think the thigs that it's doing in regard to societal welfare are impermissible. I do think it impermissible for anyone to abridge my individual rights... and I rely on the feds to kick the states' butts when they do racist, sexist, pro-dogma things. maybe because i'm quite fond of the penumbra eminating from the bill of rights...

as for health coverage, it strikes me that we're the only civilized in the nation that doesn't care for its people; 50% of our bankruptcies result from unanticipated health care expenses (not including what happens to people's consumer credit when they get sick and have to pay med bills). i can't imagine that anyone would have issues with us providing options, particularly if they're cost neutral, as we hope they'll be.

as for federalist 41, i guess i don't think the founders, individually are anything more than politicians with differing opinions... unless the opinions are specifically codified. in fact, i'd point out that as smart as the founders were, they compromised on the issue of slavery and denied women sufferage. so they sure weren't perfect and their every word isn't gospel.

and our 200 years of caselaw doesn't treat them as though they were gospel.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Is this what you are referring to? 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;

If so I agree but you must also understand that under section 8 the taxes must be equal for all income classes making the current system unconstitional.

Even if you're correct about that last sentence (which is an entirely separate topic of discussion), I'm glad we agree that Section 8 does not place limits on things that tax revenue can be purchased with.

 

[Tech_Esq]

What, in Article I, Section 8, do you think gives the government the ability to do "almost anything?"

And what I actually said was that the government has the ability to spend its tax revenue on "almost anything."

By spend, I assume you mean that it has the ability to "do" things with it. Not merely spend it. It is the very crux of the matter what a government, that was limited by its very construction in the legitimate purposes of its function, spends the money on.

 

[Oddball]

as for federalist 41, i guess i don't think the founders, individually are anything more than politicians with differing opinions... unless the opinions are specifically codified. in fact, i'd point out that as smart as the founders were, they compromised on the issue of slavery and denied women sufferage. so they sure weren't perfect and their every word isn't gospel.

In those two instances, constitutional amendments were passed, rather than using the intellectually disingenuous argument that the general welfare clause is a defacto green light to do what any and every do-gooder wants to do.

There's a great difference.

and our 200 years of caselaw doesn't treat them as though they were gospel.

Ahhh...The documents that provided the fremework for the caselaw aren't gospel, but the subsequent caselaw is.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I guess since this thread is going to continue, I'll post the discussion I had with Jillian about this.

The Constitution "lives and breathes" no more than a contract does. You enforce the Constitution in the same way you enforce a contract. You don't change the terms of a contract because they become inconvenient for one party or the other and the same goes for the Constitution. The parties in both cases have the ability to amend what is in the document. If they are no longer satisfied with the contents of the four corners of the agreement, then they should avail themselves of the amendment process.

That said, is health care an item than can be shoe honed somewhere in Article I, Section 8? (or anywhere else). I don't think so. I think it is an impermissible expansion of federal power. (Leaving aside whether it's a good or bad thing to do). Madison was quite clear on how Article I, Section 8 should be read at the bottom of Federalist 41.

I suppose health care can be shoved down our throat by some additional specious construction of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Since Wicker v. Filburn, limitation on federal power has been meaningless. But, it is important to remember that the character of the government that was set up by the Constitution was federal. That power given to the national government was limited and constrained.

On a philosophical level, when we violate the nature of the compact that created the social contract by unceasingly thwarting the constraints on federal power, we endanger the existence of that social contract. I believe we do so at our peril. But perhaps I think more of the intellect of common people than I should. Maybe they'll stay asleep while they are robbed of their birth-right and subjugated.

you know i have a more expansive view of the federal government because i don't think the thigs that it's doing in regard to societal welfare are impermissible. I do think it impermissible for anyone to abridge my individual rights... and I rely on the feds to kick the states' butts when they do racist, sexist, pro-dogma things. maybe because i'm quite fond of the penumbra eminating from the bill of rights...

as for health coverage, it strikes me that we're the only civilized in the nation that doesn't care for its people; 50% of our bankruptcies result from unanticipated health care expenses (not including what happens to people's consumer credit when they get sick and have to pay med bills). i can't imagine that anyone would have issues with us providing options, particularly if they're cost neutral, as we hope they'll be.

as for federalist 41, i guess i don't think the founders, individually are anything more than politicians with differing opinions... unless the opinions are specifically codified. in fact, i'd point out that as smart as the founders were, they compromised on the issue of slavery and denied women sufferage. so they sure weren't perfect and their every word isn't gospel.

and our 200 years of caselaw doesn't treat them as though they were gospel.

I'm a little surprised about the Jewish aspect in supporting the concentration of power. It seems to me that if you give the central government all the power you take away all the safety if the central government turns tyrannical which of course they have to. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. At least with a federal system, the chances are you'd have some sanctuary some place in the country. The federal government is no source of comfort when they have suspended Habius Corpus, conducted mass internments without cause, protected Jim Crow laws and on and on. Their most recent bender has been in failing to respect private property rights. I think that any trust in government is misplaced. I would only trust a government that is set against itself by its internal processes. Hopefully, the Supremes with put a tooth or two back in Federalism by the cases that will work their way through court as the states are pushing back this year.

On the health care issue. I think there are things the federal government could do within its limits that would dramatically change things for the better. I'm unimpressed the "everybody else does it" argument. Everyone else has a board that decides who lives and dies based on a process of rationing care and treatment. Comparing the moral imperatives of covering everyone or proactively denying care to some of the covered, I'm not at all sure who has the upper hand.

I think the government should pull down the false wall that prevents everyone in the country from having access to the same policies. I think there is a role for the government to create a pool of insurance and treat it as a regulated utility. If insurers which to provide health insurance, they may participate in the pool. The government will ensure a profit of some kind. The insurance companies cannot deny anyone coverage. All policies will be high deductible policies. Poor people will have their deductible covered. Everyone will have an HSA that allows them to save, tax deferred, monies for medical care usage. Doctors must make the cost of every treatment transparent so that consumers can shop for their medical care. Lastly, the policy is paid by taxes.

Concerning the founders, I know what you are saying, however, I'll bet that if we start talking about the separation of church and state, you'll place an awful lot of emphasis in a private letter that Jefferson wrote to some guy saying that their should be a "wall of separation between church and state." Again though, I think the more powerful argument concerns the reading of and the nature of a written Constitution. It is written for a reason. It is not just legislation. This document was approved by the people as an agreement to by them to be governed in a specific manner. This is binding on future generations. There is an amendment process and indeed the Constitution has been amended in significant ways over the years. If the Constitution truly doesn't fit way the governed wish to currently be governed, the solution is amendment or dissolution of the Constitution, not ignoring it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Oh centrism I promise I dont hate you but again I am at a loss with this post.

Can you cut and paste out the language in the constitution where it says what you claim?

Offhand, I can think of two places: Article 1, Section 8, and the 16th amendment. These appear to cover most situations.

(I hope you don't mind my conserving bandwidth by using only those two references.)

Is this what you are referring to? 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;

If so I agree but you must also understand that under section 8 the taxes must be equal for all income classes making the current system unconstitional.

I've heard theories that ammendment 16 wasn't ratified properly, then again i've heard theories that Bush planned 9/11

In the words of Madison: Federalist 41

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 defense 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 defense 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.

He goes on:

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 any 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.

So, while some can say that the founders words are not gospel, I think we have a pretty clear and straight forward textual construction issue. Madison is quite clear that if you read the Article I, Section 8 that way that some of you want to, what he thinks of you and your ability to read. For my part, I'll stick with the guy who wrote the damned thing. I'm pretty sure he knew was he was trying to say.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Is this what you are referring to? 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;

If so I agree but you must also understand that under section 8 the taxes must be equal for all income classes making the current system unconstitional.

Even if you're correct about that last sentence (which is an entirely separate topic of discussion), I'm glad we agree that Section 8 does not place limits on things that tax revenue can be purchased with.

Its kinda hard to misinterpret what it says there, unless looking through blue or red shaded glasses .

General welfare is a very general term open to much interpretation IMO. Now if we go back to another place in the constiution....deja-vu....we had this discussion already

 

[Tech_Esq]

Is this what you are referring to? 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;

If so I agree but you must also understand that under section 8 the taxes must be equal for all income classes making the current system unconstitional.

Even if you're correct about that last sentence (which is an entirely separate topic of discussion), I'm glad we agree that Section 8 does not place limits on things that tax revenue can be purchased with.

Its kinda hard to misinterpret what it says there, unless looking through blue or red shaded glasses .

General welfare is a very general term open to much interpretation IMO. Now if we go back to another place in the constiution....deja-vu....we had this discussion already

So which are you saying Madison is?

 

[Oddball]

So, while some can say that the founders words are not gospel, I think we have a pretty clear and straight forward textual construction issue. Madison is quite clear that if you read the Article I, Section 8 that way that some of you want to, what he thinks of you and your ability to read. For my part, I'll stick with the guy who wrote the damned thing. I'm pretty sure he knew was he was trying to say.

HUBBA-HUBBA!!

I see you got pretty high marks on the reading comprehension part of your SATs!!

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Its kinda hard to misinterpret what it says there, unless looking through blue or red shaded glasses .

Actually, extremists of every stripe misinterpret it all the time. In practice, what the government spends money on is limited only by what the latest Court rulings says it can't.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

By spend, I assume you mean that it has the ability to "do" things with it. Not merely spend it. It is the very crux of the matter what a government, that was limited by its very construction in the legitimate purposes of its function, spends the money on.

Odd assumption, that. Apart from saving it and paying off debts with it, there is very little else that an organization can do with money other than spend it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Its kinda hard to misinterpret what it says there, unless looking through blue or red shaded glasses .

Actually, extremists of every stripe misinterpret it all the time. In practice, what the government spends money on is limited only by what the latest Court rulings says it can't.

That is a different question altogether.

That question centers around what to do when the judiciary has run amok and begun to produce nonsensical decisions such as Wicker v. Filburn and United States v. Darby Lumber Co. that set the entire Constitution on its ear for the rest of time or until they are overturned.

We still haven't answered that question, but IMHO we better and soon.

 

[Tech_Esq]

By spend, I assume you mean that it has the ability to "do" things with it. Not merely spend it. It is the very crux of the matter what a government, that was limited by its very construction in the legitimate purposes of its function, spends the money on.

Odd assumption, that. Apart from saving it and paying off debts with it, there is very little else that an organization can do with money other than spend it.

Did you read past the first sentence. You'll find that my post makes a lot more sense when you read the whole thing. Let me know if you need me to explain it to you. Based on your apparent reading skills from what you think Art. I Sec. 8 says, you may need a lot of help.

(See Madison's comments)