Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Centrism'sVoice]

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)

Madison's comments do not and have never had the force of law, so based on your apparent argumentation skills, I'm overjoyed to have other options for legal representation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Or, you know, maybe we could use some common sense here. If the Framers had intended the so-called "general welfare clause" to mean ". . . or, you know, do whatever you feel like with the money, it's all good", why did they go to so much trouble and effort to delineate all those specific powers of Congress for several paragraphs beforehand? Why not just say, "Congress shall have the power to collect taxes to spend on whatever seems like a good idea to them" and save the sheepskin and ink?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Or, you know, maybe we could use some common sense here. If the Framers had intended the so-called "general welfare clause" to mean ". . . or, you know, do whatever you feel like with the money, it's all good", why did they go to so much trouble and effort to delineate all those specific powers of Congress for several paragraphs beforehand? Why not just say, "Congress shall have the power to collect taxes to spend on whatever seems like a good idea to them" and save the sheepskin and ink?

First, common sense and the law often have no relationship to each other. Sad but true.

Second, someone in Philadelphia probably said, "we'd better explicitly mention a Navy, so that some crackpot won't say that it's unconstitutional to organize one."

 

[Bern80]

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.)

Here's where interpretation comes into play. The first thing in Article 1 Section 8 is that the government can collect taxes. But that's kind of where it stops. Doesn't really get into what for. I think you can easily interpret that the framers did not intend for the government to gouge the populace for whatever they want by looking at the rest of the things outlined that government can do. The rest of that list is pretty specific (i.e. establish a Navy) so if the framers had intended to allow government to collect taxes for the purpose of running the countries healthcare I would thing one of the things in there would be 'to provide the nation with health care'. Anyone think I'm way off base here?

This argument has already been debunked earlier in the thread. The framers clearly could not have "intended" to allow the government to collect taxes for the pupose of space exploration. It does not follow that NASA is unconstitutional.

Then what stops the fed from collecting as much as they want for whatever they want? Surely you don't believe the framers overlooked that minor detail given the reasons many fled from Europe.

 

[Bern80]

Or, you know, maybe we could use some common sense here. If the Framers had intended the so-called "general welfare clause" to mean ". . . or, you know, do whatever you feel like with the money, it's all good", why did they go to so much trouble and effort to delineate all those specific powers of Congress for several paragraphs beforehand? Why not just say, "Congress shall have the power to collect taxes to spend on whatever seems like a good idea to them" and save the sheepskin and ink?

First, common sense and the law often have no relationship to each other. Sad but true.

Second, someone in Philadelphia probably said, "we'd better explicitly mention a Navy, so that some crackpot won't say that it's unconstitutional to organize one."

that is not much of a response. Perhaps you could actually answer the question. See above.

 

[Bern80]

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...

This all too basic Jillian. The framers weren't retarded, they knew their history and where they came from. Everything is great when one centralized power is doing the things you like. But who is going to stop them should they become more tyranical? if things were the way you want them there would be no defense against that.

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.

Considering the tax rates in many other modernized countries and the much more colectivist nature of most what should strike you is a how low a standard every other country sets for its citizens.

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 some cases yes, but broadly the point was to keep too much power from being consildated in anyone place lest it become tyranical and unable to be overthrown.

 

[Bern80]

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.

I think you hit on the simplist way to explain it. Yes the government can collect taxes, but if what they're planning on spending it on isn't somewhere else in section 8 then they really can't be collecting taxes for it. Maybe the framers tried to make this simpler than we think and anyone trying to make it more complex is thinking too hard or trying to pull one over.

and hey thanks for post 272. Madison would be proud of me that I figured that out all on my own.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Or, you know, maybe we could use some common sense here. If the Framers had intended the so-called "general welfare clause" to mean ". . . or, you know, do whatever you feel like with the money, it's all good", why did they go to so much trouble and effort to delineate all those specific powers of Congress for several paragraphs beforehand? Why not just say, "Congress shall have the power to collect taxes to spend on whatever seems like a good idea to them" and save the sheepskin and ink?

First, common sense and the law often have no relationship to each other. Sad but true.

Second, someone in Philadelphia probably said, "we'd better explicitly mention a Navy, so that some crackpot won't say that it's unconstitutional to organize one."

that is not much of a response. Perhaps you could actually answer the question. See above.

I wouldn't worry about it. I have that lackwit on ignore, anyway, so it's not like I was expecting a response from the likes of him.

But since you quoted his ignorant post so I could see it, let me say that that was EXACTLY my point. They explicitly mentioned the things they did because they explicitly wanted Congress to do THOSE things, not whatever it damned well pleased and thought it could jam under the heading of "general welfare". The sentence that mentions "general welfare" isn't intended to be an enumeration of something Congress has the power to do; it's intended to be an explanation of the purpose of those powers that ARE enumerated. The Framers were saying, "We are giving Congress the power to levy taxes for all this stuff we just listed because we believe them to be good for the general welfare of the nation as a whole."

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Then what stops the fed from collecting as much as they want for whatever they want? Surely you don't believe the framers overlooked that minor detail given the reasons many fled from Europe.

There are many things the government is explicitly not allowed to do, and of course the fed cannot collect anything for those purposes. Detail addressed.

 

[Bern80]

Then what stops the fed from collecting as much as they want for whatever they want? Surely you don't believe the framers overlooked that minor detail given the reasons many fled from Europe.

There are many things the government is explicitly not allowed to do, and of course the fed cannot collect anything for those purposes. Detail addressed.

That would be a misinterpretation of the constitution according to the 10th amendment. Again the framers weren't dumb, which you do think would take more time and makes the least sense; trying to guess and read into the future all of the things government can't do or list the things it can do and then stipulate the rest via the 10th amendment?

 

[Oddball]

The sentence that mentions "general welfare" isn't intended to be an enumeration of something Congress has the power to do; it's intended to be an explanation of the purpose of those powers that ARE enumerated. The Framers were saying, "We are giving Congress the power to levy taxes for all this stuff we just listed because we believe them to be good for the general welfare of the nation as a whole."

Someone else who can bother themselves to read for comprehension...A rarer trait than I had thought.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then what stops the fed from collecting as much as they want for whatever they want? Surely you don't believe the framers overlooked that minor detail given the reasons many fled from Europe.

There are many things the government is explicitly not allowed to do, and of course the fed cannot collect anything for those purposes. Detail addressed.

That would be a misinterpretation of the constitution according to the 10th amendment. Again the framers weren't dumb, which you do think would take more time and makes the least sense; trying to guess and read into the future all of the things government can't do or list the things it can do and then stipulate the rest via the 10th amendment?

And provide a mechanism by which later generations can change the Constitution to suit any unforeseen circumstances.

 

[Old Rocks]

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...

This all too basic Jillian. The framers weren't retarded, they knew their history and where they came from. Everything is great when one centralized power is doing the things you like. But who is going to stop them should they become more tyranical? if things were the way you want them there would be no defense against that.

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.

Considering the tax rates in many other modernized countries and the much more colectivist nature of most what should strike you is a how low a standard every other country sets for its citizens.

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 some cases yes, but broadly the point was to keep too much power from being consildated in anyone place lest it become tyranical and unable to be overthrown.

Low standard? You do realize that many of these countries citizens enjoy a standard of living higher than ours, don't you? And that even little Costa Rica, with one tenth the per capita income we enjoy, has a health care system that has given it's citizens the fourth longest life span in the world? Well ahead of us.

 

[Old Rocks]

The sentence that mentions "general welfare" isn't intended to be an enumeration of something Congress has the power to do; it's intended to be an explanation of the purpose of those powers that ARE enumerated. The Framers were saying, "We are giving Congress the power to levy taxes for all this stuff we just listed because we believe them to be good for the general welfare of the nation as a whole."

Someone else who can bother themselves to read for comprehension...A rarer trait than I had thought.

Really? Well, Social Security is one of those things you regard as Unconstitutional, but we have it. So someone with a bit more power and comprehension than you is making the decisions. And that is a very good thing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The sentence that mentions "general welfare" isn't intended to be an enumeration of something Congress has the power to do; it's intended to be an explanation of the purpose of those powers that ARE enumerated. The Framers were saying, "We are giving Congress the power to levy taxes for all this stuff we just listed because we believe them to be good for the general welfare of the nation as a whole."

Someone else who can bother themselves to read for comprehension...A rarer trait than I had thought.

Really? Well, Social Security is one of those things you regard as Unconstitutional, but we have it. So someone with a bit more power and comprehension than you is making the decisions. And that is a very good thing.

SINCE you brought up social security.....just how does the same government who cant even make a simple savings program like social security solvent think they can handle a health care plan that they themselves set up like this

if thats too small to read on here for you here is a link to the pdf

 

[Barb]

U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

That would be a misinterpretation of the constitution according to the 10th amendment.

Explain how you arrive at this conclusion.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Someone else who can bother themselves to read for comprehension...A rarer trait than I had thought.

Really? Well, Social Security is one of those things you regard as Unconstitutional, but we have it. So someone with a bit more power and comprehension than you is making the decisions. And that is a very good thing.

SINCE you brought up social security.....just how does the same government who cant even make a simple savings program like social security solvent think they can handle a health care plan that they themselves set up like this

if thats too small to read on here for you here is a link to the pdf

As far as I can tell, nobody in this thread has claimed that the above is a wonderful panacea of a plan. Only that it isn't unconstitutional.

 

[Bern80]

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...

This all too basic Jillian. The framers weren't retarded, they knew their history and where they came from. Everything is great when one centralized power is doing the things you like. But who is going to stop them should they become more tyranical? if things were the way you want them there would be no defense against that.



Considering the tax rates in many other modernized countries and the much more colectivist nature of most what should strike you is a how low a standard every other country sets for its citizens.

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 some cases yes, but broadly the point was to keep too much power from being consildated in anyone place lest it become tyranical and unable to be overthrown.

Low standard? You do realize that many of these countries citizens enjoy a standard of living higher than ours, don't you? And that even little Costa Rica, with one tenth the per capita income we enjoy, has a health care system that has given it's citizens the fourth longest life span in the world? Well ahead of us.

You're not serious? You believe it is a countries health care system that is responsible for it's citizen's life expectancy?

I guess I'm not surprised. You are a flaming lib after all, who apparently beleives the individual has nothing to do with their outcomes.

 

[Bern80]

That would be a misinterpretation of the constitution according to the 10th amendment.

Explain how you arrive at this conclusion.

I think I already said that. Does it make for sense for the framers to write an endless list of things the fed can't do or tell the people (via the 10th) That if something is not in the enumerated list (Art. 1, sect. 8) then the fed can't do it. Federalist 41 backs this up (it's in one of the threads). Common sense for another (another thing you don't believe in). Why start a ist with someone general and broad followed by a bunch more much more specific items if you meant for the Fed to have relatively unlimited power in what it can do and tax for?