For Those That Harp on the Constitution on the subject of Health Care

[Contumacious]

That's a big 10-4.

Why the **** adopt a Constitution if the scumbags can ignore it or amend it willy nilly?

So what else do you consider illegal considering what we have today that is considered a Government program.

99.9% of what the federal government does. But I am guessing, it could be more.

.

 

[California Girl]

This is why I support the inclusion of the specific part of the Constitution which grants congress the power to enact any bill. If they had to include that, then we would all be clear what is or is not Constitutional. If the government wants to do something that does not fit within the Constitution, then 'We, The People', have the right to decide whether or not to grant them that power.

I am for smaller federal government, and more power to individual states - because that way, 'We, The People' maintain closer control of what is done in our name.

It's not hard.

 

[MajikMyst]

That's a big 10-4.

Why the **** adopt a Constitution if the scumbags can ignore it or amend it willy nilly?

So what else do you consider illegal considering what we have today that is considered a Government program.

99.9% of what the federal government does. But I am guessing, it could be more.

.

Well there you have it.. That is why neotards don't want to fund anything.. They want their taxes brought down to zero.. That is why our education is underfunded.. That is why all or most civil programs are under funded.. That is why they don't want a public option for medical reform.. And still these morons call themselves a patriot..

You all are sick!! How about being a part of the solution and not the problem.. That is what a true patriot would do..

 

[Anguille]

So what else do you consider illegal considering what we have today that is considered a Government program.

99.9% of what the federal government does. But I am guessing, it could be more.

.

Well there you have it.. That is why neotards don't want to fund anything.. They want their taxes brought down to zero.. That is why our education is underfunded.. That is why all or most civil programs are under funded.. That is why they don't want a public option for medical reform.. And still these morons call themselves a patriot..

You all are sick!! How about being a part of the solution and not the problem.. That is what a true patriot would do..

They are anarchists, really.

 

[Oddball]

Well there you have it.. That is why neotards don't want to fund anything.. They want their taxes brought down to zero.. That is why our education is underfunded.. That is why all or most civil programs are under funded.. That is why they don't want a public option for medical reform.. And still these morons call themselves a patriot..

You all are sick!! How about being a part of the solution and not the problem.. That is what a true patriot would do..

There you have it...Every big gubmint program is "underfunded", rather than totally top heavy with well-heeled bureaucrats skimming off the top.

Talk about sick.

 

[Contumacious]

So everything I listed is prove that the people we put in charge are criminals?

That's a big 10-4.

Why the **** adopt a Constitution if the scumbags can ignore it or amend it willy nilly?

Amending it is legal dumb ass. It is what provides the people with the ability to empower the Federal Government with new powers as needed.

Gay Sergeant Sir:

Let's take a look at :

Article V -

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


How many times has Congress used Article V to adopt an amendment?

Secondly, ALL amendments after 4/8/1913 are unconstitutional since the States no longer have equal suffrage in the senate due to the "adoption" of the Seventeenth Amendment.

.

 

[xotoxi]

First, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically prescribed by the Constitution is unconstitutional.

IF IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The examples that you provided are merely evidence that we are being governed by criminals.

When something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, does that mean that it is illegal?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's a big 10-4.

Why the **** adopt a Constitution if the scumbags can ignore it or amend it willy nilly?

Amending it is legal dumb ass. It is what provides the people with the ability to empower the Federal Government with new powers as needed.

Gay Sergeant Sir:

Let's take a look at :

Article V -

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


How many times has Congress used Article V to adopt an amendment?

Secondly, ALL amendments after 4/8/1913 are unconstitutional since the States no longer have equal suffrage in the senate due to the "adoption" of the Seventeenth Amendment.

.

Wrong as usual. It does not matter if the States or the people place Senators. The Constitution which you JUST cited grants the authority and the means to amend the Constitution.

As for the equal suffrage the States agreed by adopting the 17th Amendment dumb shit.

 

[MajikMyst]

This is why I support the inclusion of the specific part of the Constitution which grants congress the power to enact any bill. If they had to include that, then we would all be clear what is or is not Constitutional. If the government wants to do something that does not fit within the Constitution, then 'We, The People', have the right to decide whether or not to grant them that power.

I am for smaller federal government, and more power to individual states - because that way, 'We, The People' maintain closer control of what is done in our name.

It's not hard.

You make a good point.. And in a perfect world.. It would work.. But states don't have the money to go it alone and provide for their own people.. California is flat broke and you should know that.. A number of states are in the same boat.. Should the people suffer because their state is broke and can't afford to help anyone?? It also helps to remember that we are one nation and not 50 states.. We all need to work together.. United we stand, divided we fall..

Don't get me wrong.. States have rights.. But the founders designed it so that the states would work under the umbrella of the federal government.. If you look at any state constitution, it will declare the U.S. constitution as the supreme law of the land.. That alone should tell you how it is supposed to work.. I agree that states should have the right to make and have local laws.. As long as they aren't unconstitutional.. No state can legalize slavery..

As for healthcare?? If I am not mistaken, all states have some form of state healthcare plan often called Medicaid.. This reform would actually save the states money as now the medicaid people would fall into the public option.. It could come out of federal taxes instead of state taxes.. Which means that more could go toward education, or other infrastructure projects.. Yet for some reason conservatives are against it and make the arguement it isn't constitutional.. Which is a null issue..

The issue is whether or not you believe healthcare is a right or a privilege.. Fundamentally, it is a right as it would come under life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.. I know that isn't the constitution, but that is the philosophy of our founding fathers.. For someone to have life they need good healthcare..

Should the government provide that?? Why not?? Government on it's fundemental level is there to take care of the people it governs.. It builds our highways, takes care of our parks, pays for 911 service and our police and fire departments.. All of those things take care of us.. Our military protects us.. What else is government to do if not provide us with healthcare??

Rebuttlicans are just going to have to get over the idea that they are patriots when they constantly strip funding from our government.. They are not patriots and they are making our nation worse for themselves and everyone else..

 

[Contumacious]

First, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically prescribed by the Constitution is unconstitutional.

IF IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The examples that you provided are merely evidence that we are being governed by criminals.

When something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, does that mean that it is illegal?

Well , not according to the Gay sergeant.

He says that the Founding Fathers went to Philly just to get drunk and cruise for chicks.

So if he is right there is no constitution. Whatever the **** DC wants to do is fine by him and the statists.

.

 

[toomuchtime_]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Constitutional Chicanery

First, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically prescribed by the Constitution is unconstitutional. True, the Constitution doesn’t mention health care; but neither does it mention air traffic control. Is the FAA’s safeguarding of our skies from commercial crashes therefore unconstitutional? Of course not. First, there is the matter of the “necessary and proper” clause. And second, just because the Founders clearly meant to avoid the whole business of constitutionalizing specifically policies--see point #3, below--doesn't mean they didn't want the government to have any policies. If they did, why create a legislature?

More, after the jump.

Thoughts?

Extra Note: Social Security went through the same thing.

The question of constitutionality involves two issues: the philosophical issue you address here, and the issue of precedence, is this an action we have generally accepted as a legitimate government function even if authority for it is not specifically provided in the Constitution. As a practical matter, if these bills are struck down as unconstitutional, it will probably be because of the individual mandate, an essential lynch-pin holding the bills together. Here is what the CBO had to say on the issue of precedence with regard to the individual mandate contained in the Clinton health insurance proposal back in the 1990's.

AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED
A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an
unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required
people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the
United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in
combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on
individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase
a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.

Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic
transactions, rather than as members of society. For example, the section of the
Americans with Disabilities Act that requires restaurants to make their facilities
accessible to persons with disabilities applies to people who own restaurants.
The Federal Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from paying less than the
federal minimum wage. This prohibition pertains to individuals who employ
others. Federal environmental statutes and regulations that require firms to meet
pollution control standards and use specific technologies apply to companies that
engage in specific lines of business or use particular production processes.
Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely
rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the
Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware
of any others imposed by current federal law.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf

The individual mandate in the Massachusetts law was upheld by a lower Massachusetts court and the lawsuit is now in the appeals process. Should any of these current bills pass with an individual mandate, it is a virtual certainty that there will be years of litigation and the decision will finally be made by the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of the mandate and that decision will be made on the basis of whether the commerce clause (Article I, section 8, clause 3) of the Constitution gives the federal government sufficient interest to justify the mandate.

As the CBO statement points out, typically in the past the federal government has only used this authority to regulate actions by parties already engaged in an economic transaction, not to force parties to engage in an economic transaction, so it is not at all clear what the higher courts will decide about the individual mandate.

 

[rightwinger]

The question of Constitutionality of the health care legislation lies primarily in the so-called "public option". The Dems think this is the way to create competition among health insurance companies by providing a lower cost, taxpayer subsidized insurance program.

I wrote an email to the Dem senator from Ohio , Sherrod Brown, and asked him, among other things, where in the Constitution does the ferderal government get the authority to compete directly with the private sector in healthcare, or anything else. He wrote me back providing information on why federal healthcare is needed and what his position is. No where in the email did he even give a hint of the constitutional basis for this legislation.
Since he did not address my questions directly, or indirectly I must presume that he is addmitting there is none, but they, the Dems, are going to go full speed ahead in order to give Obama a victory, and the Consititution is only something they rely on when it suits their purposes. This legislation, if it is signed into law will be just another nail pounded into the coffin of freedom in this country.

If anyone can cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that permits the federal government to compete against the private sector regardless of the issue I would like to see it because I can not find it in my copy of the document.

I take it this is the first time you have ever written your Senator. Do you really think he reads and responds to each email?
You send an email, it gets read by a staffer and you get a standard reply based on your subject.

 

[ihopehefails]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Constitutional Chicanery

First, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically prescribed by the Constitution is unconstitutional. True, the Constitution doesn’t mention health care; but neither does it mention air traffic control. Is the FAA’s safeguarding of our skies from commercial crashes therefore unconstitutional? Of course not. First, there is the matter of the “necessary and proper” clause. And second, just because the Founders clearly meant to avoid the whole business of constitutionalizing specifically policies--see point #3, below--doesn't mean they didn't want the government to have any policies. If they did, why create a legislature?

More, after the jump.

Thoughts?

Extra Note: Social Security went through the same thing.

This is not true because why would you have a section dealing with specific powers that congress can have and why does it start out with "congress shall have the power to...". This clearly defines the powers that congress can take. All things outside those powers are unconstitutional for that reason and they did intend that the federal government have limited powers while states, depending on their own constitution, can have unlimited powers.

That was where all the power over the laws over our own lives was meant to be. Each state can easily pass its own health care bill if it chose to and other states can not have one. Each state can and should have its own unique laws that the citizens of those states create.

 

[Avatar4321]

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Constitutional Chicanery

First, there is the fallacy that anything not specifically prescribed by the Constitution is unconstitutional. True, the Constitution doesn’t mention health care; but neither does it mention air traffic control. Is the FAA’s safeguarding of our skies from commercial crashes therefore unconstitutional? Of course not. First, there is the matter of the “necessary and proper” clause. And second, just because the Founders clearly meant to avoid the whole business of constitutionalizing specifically policies--see point #3, below--doesn't mean they didn't want the government to have any policies. If they did, why create a legislature?

More, after the jump.

Thoughts?

Extra Note: Social Security went through the same thing.

The FAA has direct correllation to trade and travel. Hence, why it would fall under the interstate commerce clause, and for good reason.

What clause gives the Federal government power to regulate health care? The full extent of what they should be able to do is allow people to purchase insurance across state lines. What else do you think they have the power to do?

And social security probably isnt constitutional. we are just stuck with it because our forefathers seemed to be completely unaware that a) The program would be a long term program, b) the constitution doesnt allow it.

 

[Freedomlover]

I have now read through three pages of posts that keep referring to specific programs like Social Security, which went through the courts and was deemed consonstitutional. Remember there were probably very few if any private retirement programs available to the general public in 1935. Other government programs cited for the most part are not legitimate federal government activities. They are state and local responsibilities. Obama himself criticized the U.S. Constitution as being a document of "negative powers outlining what the government can not do to the people rather than what it can do to the people".
The framers of our Constitution designed it that way on purpose because they wanted a limited central government.

The "Expressed Powers" of the Constitution state how far the central government can go before they start bumping up against State powers and local powers. The White House is not the state governor, nor local mayor. Congress is not the state legislature nor the city council. In our "federal" system powers and responsibilities are divided and nothing but confusion and resentment can come about when one tries to step on the other's toes.

This all being said, like my senator who did not respond to me specifically as I requested, I have still yet to see anyone citing for me what part of the Constitution permits the federal government to compete against private insurance companies for the provision of health insurance, or any other product or service. I am still waiting.

 

[California Girl]

So what else do you consider illegal considering what we have today that is considered a Government program.

99.9% of what the federal government does. But I am guessing, it could be more.

.

Well there you have it.. That is why neotards don't want to fund anything.. They want their taxes brought down to zero.. That is why our education is underfunded.. That is why all or most civil programs are under funded.. That is why they don't want a public option for medical reform.. And still these morons call themselves a patriot..

You all are sick!! How about being a part of the solution and not the problem.. That is what a true patriot would do..

Well, there you have it... A total idiot who is incapable of basic comprehension skills.

If taxpayers money wasn't wasted by idiots and ******* greedy unions, etc. then there wouldn't be an underfunding. When our incompetent and corrupt government manage to spend our money properly - without the backhanders, pork, and favoritism, then - and only then - will we stop bitching about taxes.

 

[Bern80]

If anyone can cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that permits the federal government to compete against the private sector regardless of the issue I would like to see it because I can not find it in my copy of the document.

In that case, anything that is public is unconstitutional in your eyes. Social Security, Medicare, Public Education System, Food Stamps, Welfare, Post Office, Prisons, etc. In fact, that would also make police forces and firefighters unconstitutional since they are going against private companies.

Congratulations on not well thought out ideas!

But here, back in reality:

The “Government-Run” Mantra | FactCheck.org

The claim that the House bill would amount to "government-run health care" suffered a blow last week, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the so-called "public plan" in the revised bill wouldn’t offer much in the way of competition to private insurers. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from repeating the claim

Thank You, Come Again.

Actually it is you who didn't think this out too well. The STATES can a do run most of those things. Just because the FEDERAL government isn't constitutionally permitted to do those things doesn't mean they can't exist at all. So stop with the red herrings like, 'but but w what about police?" In fact that was the whole point. That the federal government have very limited very specific powers. Those powers not granted to the Fed were left to the states.

Of even greater constitutional question than allowing government to sell insurance is government requiring people to purchase it in the first place.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The 10th Amendment makes clear how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Supplying universal health care is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and is therefore not a legitimate power of the federal government.

 

[Darkwind]

Most people understand that the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as they are written, limits government. Any powers not expressly given to the government are reserved to the States or the People.

So, yes. If it is not in the Constitution, then the Feds have no authority. Of course, we have for the better part of a 110 years, decided we want to whine and complain and stick our hands out and say to government.

Take care of Me! I don't care about the other guy. I just want to be taken care of! So tax the mutha ****** for having the audacity of having more then I do and I don't care if the rights of the majority are trod upon. I want My shit!

And people wonder why our society is failing?

 

[Darkwind]

And the sad thing is that the alleged health care problem can be solved without this big take over of a huge chunk of our economy by government.