Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Once upon a time, black people who were slaves were only considered 3/5th of a person by the Constitution. Guess we shouldn't of changed that either huh?

Or hey, once upon a time, it was illegal to drink according to the Constitution. Guess we shouldn't of changed that either?

Since going against those two things would of been considered unconstitutional.

The Constitution was amended in both instances to change those situations. Are they going to amend the Constitution to pass this healthcare "reform?"

 

[Nik]

IMO the constition only limits the powers of the federal government and does not grant any specific power to it. I know its semantics but I had to get that out there.

Which would mean that it has any power not so limited, correct?

So the correct question would be "where in the Constitution does it say the feds CANNOT create socialized healthare" in your view?

That's not how the Constitution works. It explicitly states the powers of the federal government, and those are the only powers the federal government has.

Shhh, I know. I was mostly making fun of Dude and pointing out the natural result of the post he thanked

 

[Nik]

Back to that purposeful perversion of the general welfare clause, as the premise for anything and everything.

For those of you for whom English is your first language, I give you Federalist № 41 to debunk this truly asinine assertion.

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?

Yes...Yes...

Why would anyone want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??

I'm not sure. Why would you? Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.

 

[Nik]

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.

How is it certainly unconstitutional? We can give it the power under the commerce clause, easily. Or hell, even the general welfare clause people were discussing before.

 

[Oddball]

Yes...Yes...

Why would anyone want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??

I'm not sure. Why would you? Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.

When said "interpretations" stand in direct opposition to those elaborations of the architect, yes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?

Yes...Yes...

Why would anyone want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??

I'm not sure. Why would you? Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.

If the past 200 years of constitutional interpretation has gone against the original intent of the Constitution it is meaningless, and it is in the works of the founders, such as the Federalist Papers, that we find more information about what the founders originally intended the Constitution to mean.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

If the Constitution were so unequivocal, there would be no need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.

 

[Modbert]

The Constitution was amended in both instances to change those situations. Are they going to amend the Constitution to pass this healthcare "reform?"

Well it was felt at the time that both those things were wrong to have in the Constitution. They don't need to amend the Constitution to pass healthcare reform.

What I don't get is the fact we are the ONLY country that is a wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. (Maybe Turkey too)

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

Total Health Expenditures as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2000-2005 - Country Rankings

Lets see, countries with Universal Health Care in some form that beat us:

Australia, Canada, Finland, Israel, UK, (CUBA almost has us beat), Chile, SINGAPORE, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, France, Italy, Norway, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Austria, and Malta.

Gee, not a short list by any means huh? 25 countries I found in a few minutes of research and a couple others who are nearly beating us.

This is an interesting tidbit: http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

Back in 1997 (12 years ago I know but I'll explain why I'm posting this.) We're only three away from IRAQ.

 

[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.

How is it certainly unconstitutional? We can give it the power under the commerce clause, easily. Or hell, even the general welfare clause people were discussing before.

The commerce clause meant that the federal government had the power to make trade regular between the states, meaning that the federal government could stop the states from erecting trade barriers. Healthcare "reform" does not fall under the commerce clause at all. The general welfare clause, as has already been shown in this thread, did not give any powers to the federal government.

 

[Oddball]

The Constitution was amended in both instances to change those situations. Are they going to amend the Constitution to pass this healthcare "reform?"

Well it was felt at the time that both those things were wrong to have in the Constitution. They don't need to amend the Constitution to pass healthcare reform.

What I don't get is the fact we are the ONLY country that is a wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. (Maybe Turkey too)

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

Total Health Expenditures as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2000-2005 - Country Rankings

Lets see, countries with Universal Health Care in some form that beat us:

Australia, Canada, Finland, Israel, UK, (CUBA almost has us beat), Chile, SINGAPORE, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, France, Italy, Norway, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Austria, and Malta.

Gee, not a short list by any means huh?

What does playing a global game of "keep up with the Joneses" have to do with the Constitutional validity of a fascistic takeover of the medical care industry??

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the Constitution were so unequivocal, there would be no need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.

You will note, I hope, that the Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.

 

[Oddball]

The general welfare clause, as has already been shown in this thread, did not give any powers to the federal government.

Besides that, the general welfare clause is an introductory concept to the specific powers which are subsequently listed.

Anyone with even a junior high school level of English comprehension should be able to figure that out.

 

[Oddball]

If the Constitution were so unequivocal, there would be no need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.

You will note, I hope, that the Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.

Looks like history is as poorly taught as reading comprehension in tha gubament schools!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution was amended in both instances to change those situations. Are they going to amend the Constitution to pass this healthcare "reform?"

Well it was felt at the time that both those things were wrong to have in the Constitution. They don't need to amend the Constitution to pass healthcare reform.

What I don't get is the fact we are the ONLY country that is a wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. (Maybe Turkey too)

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

Total Health Expenditures as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2000-2005 - Country Rankings

Lets see, countries with Universal Health Care in some form that beat us:

Australia, Canada, Finland, Israel, UK, (CUBA almost has us beat), Chile, SINGAPORE, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, France, Italy, Norway, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Austria, and Malta.

Gee, not a short list by any means huh? 25 countries I found in a few minutes of research and a couple others who are nearly beating us.

This is an interesting tidbit: Health system attainment and performance in all Member States

Back in 1997 (12 years ago I know but I'll explain why I'm posting this.) We're only three away from IRAQ.

Clearly people felt those two things were wrong to have in the Constitution, that's why they amended it. Of course the Constitution has to be amended to allow the government to get in the healthcare business considering the Constitution does not currently give them the power to do so.

 

[Nik]

Yes...Yes...

Why would anyone want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??

I'm not sure. Why would you? Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.

When said "interpretations" stand in direct opposition to those elaborations of the architect, yes.

The Constitution was signed and ratified by more than the "architect" and they had a variety of different thoughts on what it meant. Why do you think its vague? Its the same reason US bills are vague, and the same reason treaties are often vague.

 

[Nik]

Yes...Yes...

Why would anyone want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??

I'm not sure. Why would you? Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.

If the past 200 years of constitutional interpretation has gone against the original intent of the Constitution it is meaningless, and it is in the works of the founders, such as the Federalist Papers, that we find more information about what the founders originally intended the Constitution to mean.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The founders wrote a vague document so that people could interpret it in different ways. If they wanted to spell out something in crystal clear detail, they could have done so. They knew how to write. Their opinions as expressed in documents other than the Constitution are irrelevant.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not sure. Why would you? Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.

When said "interpretations" stand in direct opposition to those elaborations of the architect, yes.

The Constitution was signed and ratified by more than the "architect" and they had a variety of different thoughts on what it meant. Why do you think its vague? Its the same reason US bills are vague, and the same reason treaties are often vague.

Then why have a constitution at all??

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not sure. Why would you? Unless you thought the past 200 years of Constittuional interpretation was all meaningless, but not sure why you would think that.

When said "interpretations" stand in direct opposition to those elaborations of the architect, yes.

The Constitution was signed and ratified by more than the "architect" and they had a variety of different thoughts on what it meant. Why do you think its vague? Its the same reason US bills are vague, and the same reason treaties are often vague.

The point of the Federalist Papers was to get New York to ratify the document. The ones who were questioning the Constitution were those who had to be convinced that the Constitution did indeed limit the power of the federal government.

 

[Nik]

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.

How is it certainly unconstitutional? We can give it the power under the commerce clause, easily. Or hell, even the general welfare clause people were discussing before.

The commerce clause meant that the federal government had the power to make trade regular between the states, meaning that the federal government could stop the states from erecting trade barriers. Healthcare "reform" does not fall under the commerce clause at all. The general welfare clause, as has already been shown in this thread, did not give any powers to the federal government.

No, actually it says "regulate" trade. Not make trade regular.

 

[Nik]

When said "interpretations" stand in direct opposition to those elaborations of the architect, yes.

The Constitution was signed and ratified by more than the "architect" and they had a variety of different thoughts on what it meant. Why do you think its vague? Its the same reason US bills are vague, and the same reason treaties are often vague.

Then why have a constitution at all??

Vague is different than nonexistant.