Do you believe the legislation of Congress ( re: healthcare ) ...

[goldcatt]

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Here's your answer. I'll have to find a link, but you're looking for the SCOTUS opinion in Heart of Atlanta Motel which sets forth the rule on how this clause is applied. Healthcare = Interstate commerce under the Constitutional definition.

No, I am not looking for a SCOTUS opinion.

"to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." does not state that Congress has the right to institute universal healthcare amongst the citizens of the individual states.

The aforementioned Clause is speaking to Congress only stepping in, when state A is trying to pass unfair tariffs against state B. See Federalist Papers #42.

I actually agree with you as to what it "should" be and I'm not normally a textualist, but believe me that's not what it is today. I've been in enough courtrooms over it to know.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Here's your answer. I'll have to find a link, but you're looking for the SCOTUS opinion in Heart of Atlanta Motel which sets forth the rule on how this clause is applied. Healthcare = Interstate commerce under the Constitutional definition.

No, I am not looking for a SCOTUS opinion.

"to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." does not state that Congress has the right to institute universal healthcare amongst the citizens of the individual states.

The aforementioned Clause is speaking to Congress only stepping in, when state A is trying to pass unfair tariffs against state B. See Federalist Papers #42.

I actually agree with you as to what it "should" be and I'm not normally a textualist, but believe me that's not what it is today. I've been in enough courtrooms over it to know.

I will agree with you that the Interstate Commerce Clause has been bastardized over the decades, thus giving Congress more power than it should rightfully have.

 

[Oddball]

falls within one of their 18 enumerated powers? If so, which one? Has President Obama cited which parts of the Constitution he believes gives the federal government the enumerated right to dictate such policies? If so, I haven't seen or heard him cite such.

First, just sayin' dude, you're a familiar face!

That said, answering your question, I don't care. Nothing that has been legislated over the past century has been strictly constitutional in your sense of the definition from the way I understand you. None of the articles of the constitution nor the amendments can explain the department of education, the department of the interior, the epa, or for that matter why we seem to have a different federal law enforcement agency for specific types of crime, like the DEA, the ATF, border patrol, postal inspectors, etc. etc. etc.

Nothing after the bolded part matters.

Indeed, it makes you part of the problem.

 

[garyd]

Nice point Dude. You either want the constitution enforced as the framers intended or you do not. In the latter case yu have already conceded the destruction of this republic of, by, and for the people and aquiesced to a petty tyrranny of, by, and for the bureaucrats.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Considering that the general welfare clause gives no actual power to Congress the answer is no. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to enact universal healthcare. An amendment to the Constitution would be necessary.

 

[rconverse]

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

There you have it. Health care is a basic human right and necessary for the general welfare of the people

Even the Declaration of Independence calls out "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Would you like me to list the numerous items that are keeping me away from my pursuit of happiness?

First, I don't make enough money.
Second, Megan Foxx isn't banging me, she's banging that dork from old school 90210.
Third, my cat died last year.
Fourth, I have to work in the morning.
Fifth, I'm actually replying to this post.

Clearly I could go on for days, but I think you'll see the point. Trying to pull some BS crap that healthcare is in the Declaration of Independence is silly at best.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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

There you have it. Health care is a basic human right and necessary for the general welfare of the people

Even the Declaration of Independence calls out "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Would you like me to list the numerous items that are keeping me away from my pursuit of happiness?

First, I don't make enough money.
Second, Megan Foxx isn't banging me, she's banging that dork from old school 90210.
Third, my cat died last year.
Fourth, I have to work in the morning.
Fifth, I'm actually replying to this post.

Clearly I could go on for days, but I think you'll see the point. Trying to pull some BS crap that healthcare is in the Declaration of Independence is silly at best.

It is an illogical big government loving position. Sadly, there are a lot of people that think like righwinger on this issue. We have got to shed the constitutional light on this subject.

 

[Darkwind]

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

There you have it. Health care is a basic human right and necessary for the general welfare of the people

Even the Declaration of Independence calls out "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

It is not a basic human right.

 

[Darkwind]

It's not general welfare, it falls under interstate commerce in Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 3.
As it's currently applied, that gives Congress huge power to regulate and govern any and all goods and services that do, can or potentially could ever cross state lines. I'm not convinced it was originally intended to be read that broadly, but reality doesn't depend on my opinion of it.

Well, that is an interesting interpretation.

However, at last glance, healthcare insurance does NOT cross state lines.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Good to see you DW.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I don't trust congress any further than I can throw them... Sad thing for a red-blooded American male to say but unfortunately, it's true. Crooks, liars, and thieves. All of them. They're all on the take and will sell out their mothers for the cost of dinner. Dems and Republicans alike. I'd rather have a sister working in a whore house than to be a member of congress. Wonder how many of them would run for office if they didn't have all of the wonderful perks they vote in for themselves?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I don't trust congress any further than I can throw them... Sad thing for a red-blooded American male to say but unfortunately, it's true. Crooks, liars, and thieves. All of them. They're all on the take and will sell out their mothers for the cost of dinner. Dems and Republicans alike. I'd rather have a sister working in a whore house than to be a member of congress. Wonder how many of them would run for office if they didn't have all of the wonderful perks they vote in for themselves?

No need to hold back on our account BBD.

 

[Darkwind]

Good to see you DW.

You as well My friend.

 

[Emma]

falls within one of their 18 enumerated powers? If so, which one? Has President Obama cited which parts of the Constitution he believes gives the federal government the enumerated right to dictate such policies? If so, I haven't seen or heard him cite such.

Yes, it does.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

HHS is a department of the Executive.

The Constitution explicitly allows Congress to make laws directing how this (well, any) Department of the Executive is to carry out its 'mission'*. Therefore, the healthcare legislation is Constitutional.



*"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves."


Additionally, Article II, section 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

President Eisenhower proposed creating HEW as a Cabinet-level department; H.J.Res. 223 was passed in the House and Senate and signed by the President on April 1, 1953; HEW officially came into existence on April 11, 1953. The name was changed to HHS when the Department of Education was created as a Cabinet level department.

http://www.hhs.gov/about/whatwedo.html

http://www.hhs.gov/about/hhshist.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3468301842.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=-h...age&q=Joint Resolution 223 eisenhower&f=false



So it's all Constitutional and stuff.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

falls within one of their 18 enumerated powers? If so, which one? Has President Obama cited which parts of the Constitution he believes gives the federal government the enumerated right to dictate such policies? If so, I haven't seen or heard him cite such.

Yes, it does.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

HHS is a department of the Executive.

The Constitution explicitly allows Congress to make laws directing how this (well, any) Department of the Executive is to carry out its 'mission'*. Therefore, the healthcare legislation is Constitutional.



*"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves."


Additionally, Article II, section 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

President Eisenhower proposed creating HEW as a Cabinet-level department; H.J.Res. 223 was passed in the House and Senate and signed by the President on April 1, 1953; HEW officially came into existence on April 11, 1953. The name was changed to HHS when the Department of Education was created as a Cabinet level department.

HHS: What We Do

Historical Highlights

Office of Education and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; – FREE Office of Education and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; information | Encyclopedia.com: Find Office of Education and Department of Health, Education, and Wel

The executive branch, creation and ... - Google Books



So it's all Constitutional and stuff.

My evil liberal leftist friend... all you have shown is the creation of HHS. The mechanics of passing H.J. 223 were within the requirements for passage via the Constitution. That does not necessarily mean, that said legislation fits the confines of the Constitution.

I recognize and accept that the POTUS has the ability to seek a creation of or a modification to any particular Executive departments, via Congressional approval. The creation of such departments with Congressional oversight and funding must fall within the purview of Congressional oversight to begin with, via Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. If not, I do not believe such programs are congruent with the Constitution. Ergo, HHS and the various welfare and education departments located in HHS, are not within the purview of Congress, in my opinion.

If universal healthcare was a constitutional right to begin with, your point with the part of HHS that deals directly with the health aspect would be valid. But, universal healthcare is not a constitutional right. Said department oversight and funding does not fall within the Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. As such, Congress has no business overseeing and funding said department.

Technically speaking, an amendment to the Constitution is needed, to make HHS and the proposed distribution of universal healthcare thru said department all constitutional and stuff, if one believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

You have offered up a worthy retort Emma, compared to several earlier replies. But, in the end, I do not agree with your supposition.

 

[Emma]

falls within one of their 18 enumerated powers? If so, which one? Has President Obama cited which parts of the Constitution he believes gives the federal government the enumerated right to dictate such policies? If so, I haven't seen or heard him cite such.

Yes, it does.



HHS is a department of the Executive.

The Constitution explicitly allows Congress to make laws directing how this (well, any) Department of the Executive is to carry out its 'mission'*. Therefore, the healthcare legislation is Constitutional.



*"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves."


Additionally, Article II, section 2:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

President Eisenhower proposed creating HEW as a Cabinet-level department; H.J.Res. 223 was passed in the House and Senate and signed by the President on April 1, 1953; HEW officially came into existence on April 11, 1953. The name was changed to HHS when the Department of Education was created as a Cabinet level department.

HHS: What We Do

Historical Highlights

Office of Education and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; – FREE Office of Education and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; information | Encyclopedia.com: Find Office of Education and Department of Health, Education, and Wel

The executive branch, creation and ... - Google Books



So it's all Constitutional and stuff.

My evil liberal leftist friend... all you have shown is the creation of HHS. The mechanics of passing H.J. 223 were within the requirements for passage via the Constitution. That does not necessarily mean, that said legislation fits the confines of the Constitution.

I recognize and accept that the POTUS has the ability to seek a creation of or a modification to any particular Executive departments, via Congressional approval. The creation of such departments with Congressional oversight and funding must fall within the purview of Congressional oversight to begin with, via Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. If not, I do not believe such programs are congruent with the Constitution. Ergo, HHS and the various welfare and education departments located in HHS, are not within the purview of Congress, in my opinion.

If universal healthcare was a constitutional right to begin with, your point with the part of HHS that deals directly with the health aspect would be valid. But, universal healthcare is not a constitutional right. Said department oversight and funding does not fall within the Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. As such, Congress has no business overseeing and funding said department.

Technically speaking, an amendment to the Constitution is needed, to make HHS and the proposed distribution of universal healthcare thru said department all constitutional and stuff, if one believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

You have offered up a worthy retort Emma, compared to several earlier replies. But, in the end, I do not agree with your supposition.

Ah, my friend

I have shown where the creation of HEW (now HHS) was Constitutional per Article I, section 2. And per the last clause in Article I, section 8, the Congress has been explicitly granted the power to make laws necessary for HHS to execute its lawfully defined mission. The healthcare legislation clearly falls under that mission.

Whether you agree there should be a Department of HHS, or Education, or *whatever* is simply a matter of opinion and debate, but not (IMO) supported by the Constitution. The creation of Executive Departments were as defined in the Constitution, and there is nothing in Article I, section 9 that prohibits Congress from doing so.

In order for you to be correct, I need for you to show me the section of the Constitution that describes specifically what Executive Departments that are allowed and where it limits the creation of others not named.

Universal healthcare doesn't have to be specified (or even implied) to be a basic right by the Constitution; that is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that HHS is a department of the Executive, created as defined within the Constitution and Congress has the Constitutional authority to legislate how that department is to carry out its legally defined mission.

 

[Emma]

In fact, appropriations for the healthcare bill are Constitutional as well as defined here:


Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Yes, it does.



HHS is a department of the Executive.

The Constitution explicitly allows Congress to make laws directing how this (well, any) Department of the Executive is to carry out its 'mission'*. Therefore, the healthcare legislation is Constitutional.



*"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves."


Additionally, Article II, section 2:




President Eisenhower proposed creating HEW as a Cabinet-level department; H.J.Res. 223 was passed in the House and Senate and signed by the President on April 1, 1953; HEW officially came into existence on April 11, 1953. The name was changed to HHS when the Department of Education was created as a Cabinet level department.

HHS: What We Do

Historical Highlights

Office of Education and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; – FREE Office of Education and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; information | Encyclopedia.com: Find Office of Education and Department of Health, Education, and Wel

The executive branch, creation and ... - Google Books



So it's all Constitutional and stuff.

My evil liberal leftist friend... all you have shown is the creation of HHS. The mechanics of passing H.J. 223 were within the requirements for passage via the Constitution. That does not necessarily mean, that said legislation fits the confines of the Constitution.

I recognize and accept that the POTUS has the ability to seek a creation of or a modification to any particular Executive departments, via Congressional approval. The creation of such departments with Congressional oversight and funding must fall within the purview of Congressional oversight to begin with, via Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. If not, I do not believe such programs are congruent with the Constitution. Ergo, HHS and the various welfare and education departments located in HHS, are not within the purview of Congress, in my opinion.

If universal healthcare was a constitutional right to begin with, your point with the part of HHS that deals directly with the health aspect would be valid. But, universal healthcare is not a constitutional right. Said department oversight and funding does not fall within the Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. As such, Congress has no business overseeing and funding said department.

Technically speaking, an amendment to the Constitution is needed, to make HHS and the proposed distribution of universal healthcare thru said department all constitutional and stuff, if one believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

You have offered up a worthy retort Emma, compared to several earlier replies. But, in the end, I do not agree with your supposition.

Ah, my friend

I have shown where the creation of HEW (now HHS) was Constitutional per Article I, section 2. And per the last clause in Article I, section 8, the Congress has been explicitly granted the power to make laws necessary for HHS to execute its lawfully defined mission. The healthcare legislation clearly falls under that mission.

Whether you agree there should be a Department of HHS, or Education, or *whatever* is simply a matter of opinion and debate, but not (IMO) supported by the Constitution. The creation of Executive Departments were as defined in the Constitution, and there is nothing in Article I, section 9 that prohibits Congress from doing so.

In order for you to be correct, I need for you to show me the section of the Constitution that limits and describes specifically what Executive Departments that are allowed.

Universal healthcare doesn't have to be specified as a basic right by the Constitution; that is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that HHS is a department of the Executive, created as defined within the Constitution and Congress has the Constitutional authority to legislate how that department is to carry out its legally defined mission.

My position is not that the Executive Branch is limited in the cabinet departments it creates, but rather that any congressional oversight and funding thereto must be congruent with Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. If not, it is not congruent with the Constitution in that manner, even if legislation was passed by Congress.

If we go with your reasoning, that means that Congress doesn't have to abide by Article 1, Section 8, in the aforementioned areas, if the Executive Branch creates a new cabinet or department with Congressional approval of legislation. The Constitution is not supposed to work that way Emma. Article 1, Section 8 always applies. There is not supposed to be a run around it. And that is exactly the position you are arguing for, if I understand you correctly.

If the Executive Branch wishes to create a sub-department or modify an existing one with Congressional oversight and funding, it must conform to the purview of Congress via Article 1, Section 8. If it doesn't the Constitution needs to be amended, if they want such. Otherwise, you enable a cancerous growth to continue growing and enlarging in areas of this Republic, that ought not be so.

Just because Congress passed legislation, that doesn't make it " good to go" via the Constitution, if one believes in following a strict interpretation thereof.

 

[Emma]

My position is not that the Executive Branch is limited in the cabinet departments it creates, but rather that any congressional oversight and funding thereto must be congruent with Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. If not, it is not congruent with the Constitution in that manner, even if legislation was passed by Congress.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.


The creation of the department was per the Constitution. Article I, section 8 clearly states that Congress has the authority to make laws as to how the department carries out its lawfully defined mission. So how exactly is it NOT congruent?

If we go with your reasoning, that means that Congress doesn't have to abide by Article 1, Section 8, in the aforementioned areas, if the Executive Branch creates a new cabinet or department with Congressional approval of legislation. The Constitution is not supposed to work that way Emma. Article 1, Section 8 always applies. There is not supposed to be a run around it. And that is exactly the position you are arguing for, if I understand you correctly.

I don't think you are understanding my argument correctly. There is no 'run around'. HHS has a lawfully defined mission. Healthcare clearly falls under that mission. Article I, section 8 allows for Congress "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Which includes HHS.

If the Executive Branch wishes to create a sub-department or modify an existing one with Congressional oversight and funding, it must conform to the purview of Congress via Article 1, Section 8. If it doesn't the Constitution needs to be amended, if they want such. Otherwise, you enable a cancerous growth to continue growing and enlarging in areas of this Republic, that ought not be so.

Just because Congress passed legislation, that doesn't make it " good to go" via the Constitution, if one believes in following a strict interpretation thereof.

I AM providing a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The department of HHS was Constitutionally created and has a lawfully-defined mission. Per the final clause in Article I, section 8, Congress has the authority to make laws pertaining to that mission.

Any strict interpretation of the Constitution proves me right. With all due respect (and you know I love you my friend), I think you're the one playing fast and loose here. I understand you don't like the idea, but there is no argument that it doesn't fall within the enumerated powers given to Congress.

Again, where in the Constitution does it limit the Executive in what departments are allowed to be created?

 

[Emma]

Have a good night, hun. I won't be back tonight unless I can't get to sleep.


Well. Considering that... I probably WILL be back tonight lol.

Anymore now, a good night's sleep is but a remote fantasy