Founding fathers on Healthcare

[Citizen]

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

 

[Shogun]

UHC is a violation of the Constitution using a false justification of caring for the people.

It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to enact any healthcare reform.

that may very well be your opinion of "false justifications" or the responsibility of the gov to enact healthcare reform.... thankfully, y pluribus unum.

Yes, thankfully. We are beginning to see the effects of y plurbius unum in the townhalls being held all around the country.

But whether or not you believe in "From the many, One" It simply cannot be argued that the Constitutions authorizes any form of charity or entitlement.

yea dude... teabaggers EVERYWHERE sure are showing the general population whats up!





Welcome to democracy, holmes.

 

[Bfgrn]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

James Madison


I just thought some of you might enjoy what one of the our founders thought of the idea of a Govt. that people looked to for all it's needs.

Hey Navy, can you provide the context Madison's words? Was he using hyperbole to make a point against Congress proposing paying a "bounty" to fishermen that was paid instead as an "allowance"?

Be careful reading too much into Madison's words OVER words...

 

[Navy1960]

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)

I'm well aware that Madison was making known his thoughts on the "general welfare" clause and in what context he was using it under and it's well documented what Madison's postition on the "general welfare" clause intents were.

A couple of examples from the early Congresses will demonstrate the point. The First Congress rejected a bill to loan money to a glass manufacturer after several members challenged the constitutionality of the proposal. The Fourth Congress went so far as to reject, as unconstitutional, efforts to provide disaster relief to the people of Savannah, Ga., after a fire destroyed the city. During the Second Congress, a protracted debate occurred over a bill to pay a bounty to New England cod fishermen. The bill was ultimately approved only after it was amended to make clear that the payment was merely a refund for unconstitutional taxes that had been collected and not a bounty, which was thought to be unconstitutional. Rep. Hugh Williamson of South Carolina argued that the word "general" in the Spending Clause was a limitation on federal power, which made it unconstitutional "to gratify one part of the Union by oppressing another." In remarks that are a fair description of contemporary politics, he continued:


"Establish the doctrine of bounties; set aside that part of the Constitution which requires equal taxes, and demands similar distributions; destroy this barrier; - and it is not a few fishermen that will enter, claiming [$10- to $12,000], but all manner of persons; people of every trade and occupation may enter in at the breach, until they have eaten up the bread of our children."

While it's also, well documented where Hamilton stood on issues of what the meaning of "general welfare" meant as well. Your statment is not meant to imply that Madison's frame of reference only applied to the bill do you? because perhaps you may want to look at Madisons letter's and his writings and then you will see that it's pretty clear Madison's view of the constitution that the Govts. powers did not extend beyond those listed in it it and was very much an advocate for liberties in the hands of the people as opposed to a powerful Federal Govt. Forgive me if you already have read on Madison though, and I understand what your trying to say, and trust me I'm contrasting the views of Madison vs. Hamilton , which the latter's views reflect the current mode of thinking and decision making when it applies to the "general welfare" clause since the 30's.

 

[Navy1960]

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) (Pub.L. 100-707) is a United States federal law designed to bring an orderly and systemic means of federal natural disaster assistance for state and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to aid citizens.
The Stafford Act is a 1988 amended version of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Pub.L. 93-288). It created the system in place today by which a presidential disaster declaration of an emergency triggers financial and physical assistance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Act gives FEMA the responsibility for coordinating government-wide relief efforts. The Federal Response Plan it implements includes the contributions of 28 federal agencies and non-governmental organizations, such as the American Red Cross. It is named for Robert Stafford, who helped pass the law.

Congress amended it by passing the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Pub.L. 106-390), and again in 2006 with the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act (Pub.L. 109-308).
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That gives the Federal Govt. it's authority, but notice the text in bold. The Federal Govt. is there to lend assistance to the states and are NOT usurping it's authority nor are they setting policy when it comes to fighting these fires. In fact, the Article I posted earlier give the Federal Govt. all the authority it needs to do what it takes on Federal lands to do just that. However in local communities the Federal Govt. is an assistance body and not an authortative body when it comes to fighting these fires.

And you don't see a giant gap in time between the application of the above and the ratification of the Constitution? EVEN WITH your INTERPRETATION of the Article you posted? Are you suggesting that the fires ONLY hit FEDERAL LAND?



UHC doesn't have to force states to comply any more than the fed does when provided fed aid to fire hazards. Hell, we saw states reject the stimulus package too. Similarly, I have no problem with the federal legislation passing UHC and states choosing not to participate. It's the same process found in states that pass back to school tax exemptions that individual counties and towns may opt out of.

No I don't because the above bill aims to lend assistance and not usurp states rights which is fully consistant with the 10th Amendment. As for your assertion as to what I am suggesting, I don't what ever led you to that conclusion. Of course wildfires hit everywhere, in fact during the year I can sit on my back patio and see wildfires on the Mtns. every single year on state lands. So I would never suggest such a thing.

You do understand though that Federal firefighting is not the same as a federally funded, taxpayer funded healthcare entity that competes with private companies? Govt. has no charter under the constitution to establish a public healthcare entity and the mere fact of establishing one actually goes beyond the bounds of it's charter. That is why I have suggested that those that support the concept of UHC are going about this all wrong, and should focus their efforts into a constitutional amendment that establishes a healthcare right. Then you would have no bigger champion than me. Until that that time, you need rectify how you can do this without wrecking this nation financially, and do so in a manner that is consistant with the constitutional authority congress is given. I have made many suggestions on that area, and here you wil find me a harsh critic of my own party. It's my belief that my party while submitting healthcare bills over the years , yes, has spent little time focusing along with democrats on addressing the real issues of what actually causes the prices to rise in the first place. If this is done under the commerce clause and with regulation which the Govt. is very much empowered to do then I have every confidence that we can bring these costs under control.

 

[Bfgrn]

Again Navy, it's a dangerous thing to put too much meaning into words alone unless you know the context, the history and factor in probable and possible underlying motivations. Even then, the only person that knows Madison's motives is Madison...

Our founders were mortals. Yes there was much wisdom amongst them but there was also much disagreement in forming our nation, and keep in mind, there was "politics" back then too...

The codfish controversy was a "proxy" for the federal subsidies proposed in Alexander Hamilton's “Report on Manufactures” (1791)...which after resolution of the codfish dispute was never brought to a vote...

To try to apply Madison's words to health care reform is ludicrous...

 

[Old Rocks]

UHC is a violation of the Constitution using a false justification of caring for the people.

It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to enact any healthcare reform.

that may very well be your opinion of "false justifications" or the responsibility of the gov to enact healthcare reform.... thankfully, y pluribus unum.

Yes, thankfully. We are beginning to see the effects of y plurbius unum in the townhalls being held all around the country.

But whether or not you believe in "From the many, One" It simply cannot be argued that the Constitutions authorizes any form of charity or entitlement.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to enact Health Care Reform if we, the people, through our Representatives say it is.

As far as the travesties of the town hall meetings, what goes around, comes around. Just remember how well Gingrinch's shutdown of the government went over with the majority of the American People. This boorish prevention of real discussion by thuggery is going over just as well.

 

[Navy1960]

Again Navy, it's a dangerous thing to put too much meaning into words alone unless you know the context, the history and factor in probable and possible underlying motivations. Even then, the only person that knows Madison's motives is Madison...

Our founders were mortals. Yes there was much wisdom amongst them but there was also much disagreement in forming our nation, and keep in mind, there was "politics" back then too...

The codfish controversy was a "proxy" for the federal subsidies proposed in Alexander Hamilton's “Report on Manufactures” (1791)...which after resolution of the codfish dispute was never brought to a vote...

To try to apply Madison's words to health care reform is ludicrous...

While I respect your opinion Bfgrn , I have to respectfully disagree when it comes to the application of the "general welfare clause". Madison's words are fully consistant with contention that healthcare as provided by the federal Govt as it applies to the "general welfare" would be beyond the bounds of the Federal authority. As indicated, I' well aware of the issue in 1791 that spawned the word's by Madison to congress. However, when you take that with the sheer volume of Madson's words where it applies to overreaching Federal authority it's well within the bounds to apply those same words to healthcare in my opinion. While I've said repeatedly that the Federal Govt. is well within it's rights to regulate the healthcare industry as it applies to interstate commerce, it's a bit of stretch to assume that regulation extends to the formation of a federal healthcare insurance agency or exchange IMO. Thus the reason, of the application of Madison's words where it applies to the "general welfare" clause" because I know for a fact when a constitutional challenge is presented on this matter and it will be, that will be the exact defense presented. Again, I do appreciate your opinion on the matter and respect your intrepretation, however in this situation I cannot share your opnion other than when it comes to reform as it applies to the commerce clause.

 

[Navy1960]

that may very well be your opinion of "false justifications" or the responsibility of the gov to enact healthcare reform.... thankfully, y pluribus unum.

Yes, thankfully. We are beginning to see the effects of y plurbius unum in the townhalls being held all around the country.

But whether or not you believe in "From the many, One" It simply cannot be argued that the Constitutions authorizes any form of charity or entitlement.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to enact Health Care Reform if we, the people, through our Representatives say it is.
As far as the travesties of the town hall meetings, what goes around, comes around. Just remember how well Gingrinch's shutdown of the government went over with the majority of the American People. This boorish prevention of real discussion by thuggery is going over just as well.

Well that depends Rocks, your correct that congress has the authority to encact legislation that regulates industries that operate from state to state i.e. commerce clause. However, that does not give congress the authority to enact legislation beyond it's constitutional authority, for example, enacting legislation that provides a right not expressed in the constitution, why? because those are reserved for the people and the states. Its the primary reason, I have suggested that if healthcare advocates wish single payer or Universal healthcare they use this part of the constitution to their advantage and go to their respective states and enact it.

 

[Care4all]

"If we're going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenry". - - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Care4all]

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhuman". - - Dr. Martin Luther King

 

[Navy1960]

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

 

[Navy1960]

"the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated."
--Thomas Jefferson