Role of the USSC

[DGS49]

Most people with even a passing understanding of the Constitution believe that the current challenge to the Affordable Care Act will fail spectacularly. It is logically, legally, and constitutionally preposterous. The only real question is whether the vote at the SC will be 8-0 or 9-0.

Nevertheless, there are scores of Democrat politicians who assure their constituents and potential voters that President Trump's current Court nominee - the Barrett lady - will, pretty much by herself, cause the sacred right of the unfortunates with "pre-existing, expensive medical conditions" to lose their health insurance, and both go broke and DIE.

So here is the question for the board (y'all):

Assume that newly-sworn-n Justice Barrett believes that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, BUT that it is the ONLY THING standing between millions of very sick people and DEATH! That is, if she votes to nullify the law, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Should she cast her vote to uphold the law that she considers unconstitutional, or vote it down and condemn million to a quick and painful death?

HINT: The recently deceased RBG would, under these circumstances, vote to uphold the law.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Most people with even a passing understanding of the Constitution believe that the current challenge to the Affordable Care Act will fail spectacularly. It is logically, legally, and constitutionally preposterous. The only real question is whether the vote at the SC will be 8-0 or 9-0.

Nevertheless, there are scores of Democrat politicians who assure their constituents and potential voters that President Trump's current Court nominee - the Barrett lady - will, pretty much by herself, cause the sacred right of the unfortunates with "pre-existing, expensive medical conditions" to lose their health insurance, and both go broke and DIE.

So here is the question for the board (y'all):

Assume that newly-sworn-n Justice Barrett believes that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, BUT that it is the ONLY THING standing between millions of very sick people and DEATH! That is, if she votes to nullify the law, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Should she cast her vote to uphold the law that she considers unconstitutional, or vote it down and condemn million to a quick and painful death?

HINT: The recently deceased RBG would, under these circumstances, vote to uphold the law.

She should vote the law...always. However..the law does allow for exigent circumstance. I'd not worry..in real life..the politicians won't stop some form of ACA...with a retread name or whatever..people like it..the core of it. To a politicans those millions add up to votes...and as we well know..a politican whores for votes non-stop.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Always vote the law based solely upon its constitutionality.

 

[danielpalos]

Most people with even a passing understanding of the Constitution believe that the current challenge to the Affordable Care Act will fail spectacularly. It is logically, legally, and constitutionally preposterous. The only real question is whether the vote at the SC will be 8-0 or 9-0.

Nevertheless, there are scores of Democrat politicians who assure their constituents and potential voters that President Trump's current Court nominee - the Barrett lady - will, pretty much by herself, cause the sacred right of the unfortunates with "pre-existing, expensive medical conditions" to lose their health insurance, and both go broke and DIE.

So here is the question for the board (y'all):

Assume that newly-sworn-n Justice Barrett believes that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, BUT that it is the ONLY THING standing between millions of very sick people and DEATH! That is, if she votes to nullify the law, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Should she cast her vote to uphold the law that she considers unconstitutional, or vote it down and condemn million to a quick and painful death?

HINT: The recently deceased RBG would, under these circumstances, vote to uphold the law.

I believe promoting the general welfare means providing for the general welfare in such a manner that solves for simple poverty in our republic. With full employment of capital resources, our market based economy should be able to come up with market based solutions to healthcare.

 

[MadChemist]

Most people with even a passing understanding of the Constitution believe that the current challenge to the Affordable Care Act will fail spectacularly. It is logically, legally, and constitutionally preposterous. The only real question is whether the vote at the SC will be 8-0 or 9-0.

Nevertheless, there are scores of Democrat politicians who assure their constituents and potential voters that President Trump's current Court nominee - the Barrett lady - will, pretty much by herself, cause the sacred right of the unfortunates with "pre-existing, expensive medical conditions" to lose their health insurance, and both go broke and DIE.

So here is the question for the board (y'all):

Assume that newly-sworn-n Justice Barrett believes that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, BUT that it is the ONLY THING standing between millions of very sick people and DEATH! That is, if she votes to nullify the law, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Should she cast her vote to uphold the law that she considers unconstitutional, or vote it down and condemn million to a quick and painful death?

HINT: The recently deceased RBG would, under these circumstances, vote to uphold the law.

I believe promoting the general welfare means providing for the general welfare in such a manner that solves for simple poverty in our republic. With full employment of capital resources, our market based economy should be able to come up with market based solutions to healthcare.

That is not what the General Welfare Clause was intended to create.

 

[Gdjjr]

I believe promoting the general welfare means providing for the general welfare

Words mean things, or they don't

provide: make available for use; supply.

promote: further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

Maybe you could go to work for that guy in the black dress who believes he is supreme and changes words he's not authorized to change simply because he "believes", i.e., a fine is a tax-

To make something (like a commodity available one has to have that commodity, or access to it- the fed gov't has access to tax (fine) you- that isn't a commodity-

Furthermore, "affordable" is ambiguous and highly subjective- and the gov't doesn't "care" - your "health" is the least of its worries- health is something *you* have, good, bad or perfect- care is an emotion-belief is employed in an emotional state- the gov't does "act" though- poorly most of the time

 

[Gdjjr]

Obamacare (as though he does- ) is here to stay- some want to strengthen it most want to just tweak it- but, it ain't gong away

 

[danielpalos]

Most people with even a passing understanding of the Constitution believe that the current challenge to the Affordable Care Act will fail spectacularly. It is logically, legally, and constitutionally preposterous. The only real question is whether the vote at the SC will be 8-0 or 9-0.

Nevertheless, there are scores of Democrat politicians who assure their constituents and potential voters that President Trump's current Court nominee - the Barrett lady - will, pretty much by herself, cause the sacred right of the unfortunates with "pre-existing, expensive medical conditions" to lose their health insurance, and both go broke and DIE.

So here is the question for the board (y'all):

Assume that newly-sworn-n Justice Barrett believes that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, BUT that it is the ONLY THING standing between millions of very sick people and DEATH! That is, if she votes to nullify the law, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Should she cast her vote to uphold the law that she considers unconstitutional, or vote it down and condemn million to a quick and painful death?

HINT: The recently deceased RBG would, under these circumstances, vote to uphold the law.

I believe promoting the general welfare means providing for the general welfare in such a manner that solves for simple poverty in our republic. With full employment of capital resources, our market based economy should be able to come up with market based solutions to healthcare.

That is not what the General Welfare Clause was intended to create.

The welfare General is what it covers, literally.

Right wingers already conceded the point with their alleged, Right to Work States. Full employment for anyone who wants to work, now!

 

[Gdjjr]

The welfare General is what it covers, literally.

No- see, you're illustrating your ignorance, in public, again- it's general Welfare- see how general is not capitalized and welfare is? Look it up- educate yourself in simple English-

 

[danielpalos]

The welfare General is what it covers, literally.

No- see, you're illustrating your ignorance, in public, again- it's general Welfare- see how general is not capitalized and welfare is? Look it up- educate yourself in simple English-

It is literally a general welfare clause. You quibbling is irrelevant. Our welfare clause is General not Common or Limited. That was the Point.

 

[MadChemist]

Most people with even a passing understanding of the Constitution believe that the current challenge to the Affordable Care Act will fail spectacularly. It is logically, legally, and constitutionally preposterous. The only real question is whether the vote at the SC will be 8-0 or 9-0.

Nevertheless, there are scores of Democrat politicians who assure their constituents and potential voters that President Trump's current Court nominee - the Barrett lady - will, pretty much by herself, cause the sacred right of the unfortunates with "pre-existing, expensive medical conditions" to lose their health insurance, and both go broke and DIE.

So here is the question for the board (y'all):

Assume that newly-sworn-n Justice Barrett believes that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, BUT that it is the ONLY THING standing between millions of very sick people and DEATH! That is, if she votes to nullify the law, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Should she cast her vote to uphold the law that she considers unconstitutional, or vote it down and condemn million to a quick and painful death?

HINT: The recently deceased RBG would, under these circumstances, vote to uphold the law.

I believe promoting the general welfare means providing for the general welfare in such a manner that solves for simple poverty in our republic. With full employment of capital resources, our market based economy should be able to come up with market based solutions to healthcare.

That is not what the General Welfare Clause was intended to create.

The welfare General is what it covers, literally.

Right wingers already conceded the point with their alleged, Right to Work States. Full employment for anyone who wants to work, now!

It is not.

 

[danielpalos]

Most people with even a passing understanding of the Constitution believe that the current challenge to the Affordable Care Act will fail spectacularly. It is logically, legally, and constitutionally preposterous. The only real question is whether the vote at the SC will be 8-0 or 9-0.

Nevertheless, there are scores of Democrat politicians who assure their constituents and potential voters that President Trump's current Court nominee - the Barrett lady - will, pretty much by herself, cause the sacred right of the unfortunates with "pre-existing, expensive medical conditions" to lose their health insurance, and both go broke and DIE.

So here is the question for the board (y'all):

Assume that newly-sworn-n Justice Barrett believes that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, BUT that it is the ONLY THING standing between millions of very sick people and DEATH! That is, if she votes to nullify the law, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Should she cast her vote to uphold the law that she considers unconstitutional, or vote it down and condemn million to a quick and painful death?

HINT: The recently deceased RBG would, under these circumstances, vote to uphold the law.

I believe promoting the general welfare means providing for the general welfare in such a manner that solves for simple poverty in our republic. With full employment of capital resources, our market based economy should be able to come up with market based solutions to healthcare.

That is not what the General Welfare Clause was intended to create.

The welfare General is what it covers, literally.

Right wingers already conceded the point with their alleged, Right to Work States. Full employment for anyone who wants to work, now!

It is not.

General welfare is general not common nor limited.

 

[MadChemist]

Most people with even a passing understanding of the Constitution believe that the current challenge to the Affordable Care Act will fail spectacularly. It is logically, legally, and constitutionally preposterous. The only real question is whether the vote at the SC will be 8-0 or 9-0.

Nevertheless, there are scores of Democrat politicians who assure their constituents and potential voters that President Trump's current Court nominee - the Barrett lady - will, pretty much by herself, cause the sacred right of the unfortunates with "pre-existing, expensive medical conditions" to lose their health insurance, and both go broke and DIE.

So here is the question for the board (y'all):

Assume that newly-sworn-n Justice Barrett believes that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, BUT that it is the ONLY THING standing between millions of very sick people and DEATH! That is, if she votes to nullify the law, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Should she cast her vote to uphold the law that she considers unconstitutional, or vote it down and condemn million to a quick and painful death?

HINT: The recently deceased RBG would, under these circumstances, vote to uphold the law.

I believe promoting the general welfare means providing for the general welfare in such a manner that solves for simple poverty in our republic. With full employment of capital resources, our market based economy should be able to come up with market based solutions to healthcare.

That is not what the General Welfare Clause was intended to create.

The welfare General is what it covers, literally.

Right wingers already conceded the point with their alleged, Right to Work States. Full employment for anyone who wants to work, now!

It is not.

General welfare is general not common nor limited.

It is extremely limited.

James Madison Refutes Expansive Reading of the General Welfare Clause | Tenth Amendment Center

His speech is a stinging refutation to all those who claim the clause empowers the federal government to spend money for anything and everything

tenthamendmentcenter.com

This isn’t just a modern phenomenon. Politicians seized on the general welfare cause within the first decade of the Constitution’s ratification. James Madison addressed it during the debate over a bill to encourage American cod fisheries in 1792.

Madison objected to certain provisions in the bill, but he was more concerned about the constitutional justification some were using to support the legislation. They claimed the bill was authorized under the general welfare clause. In a speech on the House floor, Madison said that while there was arguably justification for it under the commerce clause, it was not something that was supported by the general welfare clause. His speech is a stinging refutation to all those who claim the clause empowers the federal government to spend money for anything and everything under the sun as long as it benefits the “general welfare” of the country.

***********************

The Federal Government is narrowly restricted by the constitution.

The General Welfare Clause gives them the authority to do whatever they need to carry out a clearly defined set of activities.