Does The Constitution Include Health Care For All?

[goldcatt]

I have no idea what you just tried to say there.

 

[Oddball]

Ask BGG.

 

[goldcatt]

Ask BGG.

I know what he'll say.

It's all good, but you need to remember the Founders you so admire were fighting over what it meant before the ink was even dry on it. Even Madison changed his mind several times throughout his life, as evidenced in his own writings with Jefferson and others. If the people who came up with the Constitution couldn't agree on what it meant, how can you expect there to be only one viable interpretation today? Especially one based on a political ad campaign. I thoroughly enjoy the sparring, but in the end all it says is who among the Founders we agree with, not whether one of us agrees with them and one does not.

 

[Vanquish]

Anyone who thinks Medicare is unconstitutional needs to step right up and bring suit. Oh wait, it's NEVER BEEN LITIGATED.

Medicare is a valid exercise of the tax and spend clause and yes, to promote the general welfare of the United States. If you voluntarily want to become an enrollee, that's your choice.

 

[Vast LWC]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

It does not specifically call for the CDC, or for Social Security. But I am very glad that we have both. And they are in accordance with the intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Nobody asked what usurpations of de jure constitutional governance you are glad about.

And according to the architect of the Constitution, James Madison, as spelled out in Federalist № 41, neither those programs nor socialized medical services are anywhere near in keeping with the intent of the national charter.

The constitution was the result of the input of many people. James Madison, though he did in fact have an important role in it's conception, is just one of those many.

His personal interpretation of what the Constitution's intent was is simply his opinion, and carries no legal weight.

As you probably know, there were several opposing viewpoints on the subject of central power at the time, as there are today.

And, as has been pointed out many times in this thread alone, the Constitution was written in the 18th century. The world has changed much since then.

If the many writers of the Consitution had meant to put in the specific language that is contained in the Federalist paper you mentioned, then they would have done just that. But they didn't, did they?

 

[Vast LWC]

What this boils down to is the meaning of "general welfare" and if you are believer in the 20th century view that was ruled on by the court in 1936 i.e. United States v. Butler

This ruling reveresed the long held premise of limited Govt. and it's definition of the general welfare according the the father of the constitution James Madison in favor of that made by Hamilton.

In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton asserted the general welfare provision conferred a power separate and distinct from the specific grants of legislative power contained in the Constitution. He also claimed the specific grants of legislative power did not qualify or limit the meaning of the general welfare phrase. Therefore, Congress, according to Hamilton, had an independent and unspecified power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare.

This view since 1936 has been the view that the courts generally favor of those of the Madison even though Madison is considered the father of the constitituon. I think it worth noting though what Justice Roberts who was a part of this ruling had to say about this in 1951.

The Supreme Court had no opportunity to interpret this clause until 1936, in United States v. Butler. In striking down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, Justice Owen *Roberts, writing for the majority, held with Hamilton's view, saying that the Taxing and Spending Clause was indeed a separate grant of power to Congress. Because the Court could determine for itself whether a particular tax or expenditure was in the general welfare of the country, however, Roberts read the clause as limiting Congress's reach to matters of “national, as distinguished from local welfare.” The limitation proposed by Butler remained hypothetical, however, since the Court struck down the statute in question on other grounds.

In 1951 the same Justice Roberts wrote the following;

"Looking back it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge ... an insistence by the Court on holding Federal power to what seemed its appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our dual structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government."


Baily V. Drexel
Taft argued the law describes a set course for businesses and when they deviate from that course, a payment is enacted. Taft said “scienter is associated with penalties, not with taxes.” “The court must be blind not to see that the so-called tax imposed to stop the employment of children within the age limits prescribed.” Taft said that the court must commit itself to the highest law of the land and the duty of the court, even though it requires them to refuse legislation designed to promote the highest good. He went on to say that the good sought in unconstitutional legislation leads citizens and legislators down a dangerous path of breaching the constitution and recognized standards. In addition, Congress could take control of many areas of public interest, which the States have control over reserved by the Tenth Amendment, by enacting regulating subjects and enforcing them by a so-called “tax.” This would break down the constitutional limitations on Congress and eliminate the sovereignty of States. A tax is a source of revenue for the government, while a penalty is a regulation and punishment for a certain behavior.

While this case was just prior to the former it shows a view prior to the adoption of the Hamilton view than many see as the meaning of what the clause means.

One thing people seem to get caught up with in this over reach view of the general welfare clause is the following.

The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.

It' fairly obvious that if the framers of the constitution had intended the meaning of general welfare to confer powers to the Federal Govt. that unlimited in scope then they would not have bothered with a a bill of rights. In fact why have the 10th Amendment at all if you confer powers upon the Federal Govt. if you run to the "general welfare" clause as a broad all encompassing meaning. In fact could it that general welfare means as it applies to the taxing provisions of the amendment rather than a broad all encompassing provision that can circumvent the rest of the constitution. In fact the constitution has a mechanism to provide for those that wish healthcare to become as much a right as free speech and thats called the Amendment process. I have long felt that those that advocate mandated coverage for all should go down this road rather than further circumvent the constitution that began with FDR. In fact the commerce clause can give those that advocate healthcare reform as it applies to regulating the healthcare industry and I fail to understand why the congress does not apply it's power under this clause to reform healthcare costs and make it available for those that need it and want it.

Your post is well presented, but your conclusion is your opinion, not based on existing legal precedent.

If congress makes a law under the General Welfare clause, then the courts can strike it down as Unconstitutional.

That is why this system of checks an balances among the federal branches was set up in the first place.

Which is probably why no such limiiting clause to the "general welfare" item was added to the document to begin with.

The consitution was made to be malleable. That was obviously the intent of the founding fathers. If our modern society deems to interpret the phrase "General Welfare" to include public health care, then they certainly have the leeway to do so, as a purely legal matter.

 

[Oddball]

The consitution was made to be malleable. That was obviously the intent of the founding fathers. If our modern society deems to interpret the phrase "General Welfare" to include public health care, then they certainly have the leeway to do so, as a purely legal matter.

Total bullshit.

That "malleability" was to be enacted via the amendment process, not via whatever intellectually contorted interpretations of "general welfare" any given nanny statist could come up with.

Madison made this beyond clear in Federalist #41, amongst his other writings on the topic.

 

[veritas]

Anyone who thinks Medicare is unconstitutional needs to step right up and bring suit. Oh wait, it's NEVER BEEN LITIGATED.

Medicare is a valid exercise of the tax and spend clause and yes, to promote the general welfare of the United States. If you voluntarily want to become an enrollee, that's your choice.

So what is Dick Armey suing to get out of it for? He was on MTP yesterday saying it he filed suit to be able to opt out because he says it is illegal to do so, and illegal for those over 65 to have private insurance. Do you know anything about this?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because Dick is a toid. Of course it is constitutional. The general welfare clause and the interstate trade clause allow Congress to do just about anything, except shut Elvis up, that is. It is a good constitution, because stains like Elvis get to have their free speech.

 

[Vast LWC]

The consitution was made to be malleable. That was obviously the intent of the founding fathers. If our modern society deems to interpret the phrase "General Welfare" to include public health care, then they certainly have the leeway to do so, as a purely legal matter.

Total bullshit.

That "malleability" was to be enacted via the amendment process, not via whatever intellectually contorted interpretations of "general welfare" any given nanny statist could come up with.

Madison made this beyond clear in Federalist #41, amongst his other writings on the topic.

Fact: There is a statement in the Consitution that allows for the government to "promote general welfare".

Fact: The term "Promote the General Welfare" is a general and non-specific term, and is thus "malleable" and open to interpretation.

Just because your opinion of what it means differs from mine, does not make my interpretation "Unconstitutional", unless the Supreme court of the United States says it is in fact, unconstitutional.

Your own interpretation of what "General Welfare" can be said to be just as "contorted".

 

[goldcatt]

You know what's really great about the Constitution? Not the words or the opinions of a few among the Framers, but the fact that it was designed for us to still be arguing the same arguments today that they did then. The minute we start taking the balance of powers and the delegation of authority for granted without question is the minute the Republic really starts dying. There's room for us all in the argumnent and the question will never, ever be answered, that's the beauty of it. Cheers!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know what's really great about the Constitution? Not the words or the opinions of a few among the Framers, but the fact that it was designed for us to still be arguing the same arguments today that they did then. The minute we start taking the balance of powers and the delegation of authority for granted without question is the minute the Republic really starts dying. There's room for us all in the argumnent and the question will never, ever be answered, that's the beauty of it. Cheers!

Just so!

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You know what's really great about the Constitution? Not the words or the opinions of a few among the Framers, but the fact that it was designed for us to still be arguing the same arguments today that they did then. The minute we start taking the balance of powers and the delegation of authority for granted without question is the minute the Republic really starts dying. There's room for us all in the argumnent and the question will never, ever be answered, that's the beauty of it. Cheers!

The Republic is already dying. It is dying because the employers (as a whole) of this Republic haave some kind of fetish for emotional orgasmic feel good law. Never mind that the Constitution says otherwise. And on top of that political herpes fest post 1789, we have political whores in Washington so doped up on their political power and position, they are doing whatever it takes to cop their next political fix, even if it is at the expense of the Constitution.

We have enablers enabling the junkies, while they walk around in their political football helmets telling bathroom and freezer stories to the rookies at half-time. And people wonder why the wheels on the bus keep going round and round.

 

[goldcatt]

You know what's really great about the Constitution? Not the words or the opinions of a few among the Framers, but the fact that it was designed for us to still be arguing the same arguments today that they did then. The minute we start taking the balance of powers and the delegation of authority for granted without question is the minute the Republic really starts dying. There's room for us all in the argumnent and the question will never, ever be answered, that's the beauty of it. Cheers!

The Republic is already dying. It is dying because the employers (as a whole) of this Republic haave some kind of fetish for emotional orgasmic feel good law. Never mind that the Constitution says otherwise. And on top of that political herpes fest post 1789, we have political whores in Washington so doped up on their political power and position, they are doing whatever it takes to cop their next political fix, even if it is at the expense of the Constitution.

We have enablers enabling the junkies, while they walk around in their political football helmets telling bathroom and freezer stories to the rookies at half-time. And people wonder why the wheels on the bus keep going round and round.

So you think there's no hope at all for the future of the US?

 

[veritas]

You know what's really great about the Constitution? Not the words or the opinions of a few among the Framers, but the fact that it was designed for us to still be arguing the same arguments today that they did then. The minute we start taking the balance of powers and the delegation of authority for granted without question is the minute the Republic really starts dying. There's room for us all in the argumnent and the question will never, ever be answered, that's the beauty of it. Cheers!

The Republic is already dying. It is dying because the employers (as a whole) of this Republic haave some kind of fetish for emotional orgasmic feel good law. Never mind that the Constitution says otherwise. And on top of that political herpes fest post 1789, we have political whores in Washington so doped up on their political power and position, they are doing whatever it takes to cop their next political fix, even if it is at the expense of the Constitution.

We have enablers enabling the junkies, while they walk around in their political football helmets telling bathroom and freezer stories to the rookies at half-time. And people wonder why the wheels on the bus keep going round and round.

C Street type religious wackos and Corporate Hegemony.

 

[Navy1960]

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S." that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. Thomas Jefferson

While it is true that since 1936 in the case I have posted the Hamiltion view of general welfare is the one that most look to as their legal precedent on this matter and not the Madison view. So to make a blanket statement that there is no existing legal precedent in fact there is precedent in law on the Madison view in Bailey v. Drexel but since the FDR threat to pack the courts and as Justice Roberts rightly pointed out the 1936 case was more to save the courts from FDR rather than law. As for the assertion that the general welfare clause is subject to interpretation by congress, the framers of the constitution seem to disagree with that point especially Madison and Jefferson. If the notion is that congress makes a law and the constitutionality of that law is then heard in the courts then the poster is quite correct and I tend to believe that if a healthcare bill is passed with a public option that is exactly where it it headed if it has mandates in it. It should be an interesting case none the less , the recent passage in both houses of the Arizona healthcare freedom act that contradicts this healthcare bill may be a place where it will all start who knows.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Access to affordable health care will help insure domestic tranquility, it will provide a common defense against illness and the exorbitant cost of health care, and it will indeed promote the general welfare. Nothing is more crucial to the general welfare of American citizens than their health and that requires access to affordable health care."

"Health care legislation will accomplish three essential objectives:

It will ensure that Americans have health insurance even when they lose their jobs or are between jobs.

It will ensure that Americans who suffer catastrophic illnesses will not have to lose their homes or go bankrupt in order to pay for treatment and hospitalization.

It will cover children who are out of college, but have not yet found jobs.

And—If the legislation includes a public option, it will lower costs by offering the choice of less-costly insurance."

Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Does The Constitution Include Health Care ForÂ*All?

See also:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-all-your-questions-on-uhc-5.html#post1422612

Some Statistics:
Healthcare « ChartingTheEconomy.Com

I have exactly one thing to say to each and every arrogant assertion you've made here: Prove it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No it doesn't specifically call for universal health care.

But if UHC is the way to a constitutional goal, and is legal and desired by the majority of we the people, why not?

Because the Constitution isn't about setting a goal and saying, "Get there however you like." It is a list of very specific things the government is allowed to do to achieve the specified goals. No more, no less. If you want to do something else, then you amend the Constitution to include it.

And that's even assuming that your smug assertion that your ideas will achieve those goals is actually true.

 

[Vanquish]

"Access to affordable health care will help insure domestic tranquility, it will provide a common defense against illness and the exorbitant cost of health care, and it will indeed promote the general welfare. Nothing is more crucial to the general welfare of American citizens than their health and that requires access to affordable health care."

"Health care legislation will accomplish three essential objectives:

It will ensure that Americans have health insurance even when they lose their jobs or are between jobs.

It will ensure that Americans who suffer catastrophic illnesses will not have to lose their homes or go bankrupt in order to pay for treatment and hospitalization.

It will cover children who are out of college, but have not yet found jobs.

And—If the legislation includes a public option, it will lower costs by offering the choice of less-costly insurance."

Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Does The Constitution Include Health Care ForÂ*All?

See also:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-all-your-questions-on-uhc-5.html#post1422612

Some Statistics:
Healthcare « ChartingTheEconomy.Com

I have exactly one thing to say to each and every arrogant assertion you've made here: Prove it.

How about before that, you tell us on each of those points, what you'll accept as truth. Just posting "prove it" is intellectually lazy at worst and is not helping an honest debate at best.

Each of those points could be "proven" and rejected if you dont accept what the criteria is for truth.

 

[Vast LWC]

You know what's really great about the Constitution? Not the words or the opinions of a few among the Framers, but the fact that it was designed for us to still be arguing the same arguments today that they did then. The minute we start taking the balance of powers and the delegation of authority for granted without question is the minute the Republic really starts dying. There's room for us all in the argumnent and the question will never, ever be answered, that's the beauty of it. Cheers!

The Republic is already dying. It is dying because the employers (as a whole) of this Republic haave some kind of fetish for emotional orgasmic feel good law. Never mind that the Constitution says otherwise. And on top of that political herpes fest post 1789, we have political whores in Washington so doped up on their political power and position, they are doing whatever it takes to cop their next political fix, even if it is at the expense of the Constitution.

We have enablers enabling the junkies, while they walk around in their political football helmets telling bathroom and freezer stories to the rookies at half-time. And people wonder why the wheels on the bus keep going round and round.

Never was one for Nihilism myself. You go with your bad self though.