Where does the constitution give Congress power to set up national health care?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is most on the right oppose the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with concerns for ‘individual rights,’ and everything to do with humiliating the president should the Act be repealed.

The proof of this is the fact that conservatives have offered nothing to replace the ACA to achieve the Act’s goals, satisfied to allow millions of Americans to continue to suffer without health insurance and the related skyrocketing costs that adversely effect us all.

 

[OKTexas]

The problem is most on the right oppose the ACA for purely partisan reasons, having nothing to do with concerns for ‘individual rights,’ and everything to do with humiliating the president should the Act be repealed.

The proof of this is the fact that conservatives have offered nothing to replace the ACA to achieve the Act’s goals, satisfied to allow millions of Americans to continue to suffer without health insurance and the related skyrocketing costs that adversely effect us all.

Have you actually read the decision upholding that unconstitutional piece of crap, the decision itself was reached using unconstitutional powers the courts have assumed and then they brought about an unconstitutional direct tax. Right, that has to be a partisan position. LMAO

 

[shintao]

The entire document was written for the express purpose of limiting the power of government.
The concept was that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
That the people are protected by this limiting document from the tyranny of democracy and tyranny of an all encompassing government.
Finally the Tenth Amendment spells this out in plain English.....
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.

What that means is, now pay attention because this is the last time you will get this explanation, is this. That if the Constitution does not state that the federal government "may" or "shall" it CANNOT.
The entire premise of this idea is that individuals have God given rights. The Constitution was written to speel out that idea and to insure those in government were well informed. The government serves the people. Not the other way around.
I cannot believe any person of reasonable intelligence would believe that government can basically do what it wants with impunity. Do you believe that?
If not, please explain your interpretation of how things are.
Oh. Here in this link is the explanation of enumerated powers.
This should be the end of your silly notion that the federal government has unlimited power.
Federalism | LII / Legal Information Institute

So, it doesn't say that at all. That means your statement "You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?" is not true.

Really?

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

There are quotes down both sides of the issue as to what was the intent, and none of that matter now. The only thing that does matter is what the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean of the constitution today. And clearly, they just looked at Obama care and except for a few provisions, gave it the nod. The Supreme Court's Obamacare Decision: Full Text - The Editors - The Atlantic

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Free, single payer, nationalized, communal health benefits is the optimal program.

Marxist clinic care, for the people !!!

 

[dblack]

Yeah, I suppose a conspiracy is a much more plausible explanation.

It's not a conspiracy. Just the natural drive of statists to control everything they can with government.

Yes, it is.

And it’s a very ignorant and tedious conspiracy theory.

No, it's neither a conspiracy, nor a theory. It's an observation of what is going on. And you all are passively supporting it. Sad to see.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

]It's their job to maintain the "general welfare" of the country.

If something is harming the country, it's Congress job to step in and enact legislation that stops the threat. In this case, runaway healthcare costs that were resulting in over 50% of bankruptcy's being filed every year.

Where is your evidence that national health care will in fact provide for the general welfare of the country.?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Isn't it the Feds jobs to correct something if it is harming the country?

HAHAHA. Where did you get that idea? It's certainly not in the constitution. The constitution actually LISTS the areas where congress can do something and health care is not listed.

 

[bodecea]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

The same place where it gives Congress the power to set up an FCC, an FAA, a Dept of the Air Force, etc.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

The same place where it gives Congress the power to set up an FCC, an FAA, a Dept of the Air Force, etc.

That's right - they just invent new powers for the federal govt without going thru the amending process.

 

[J.E.D]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?

Unless I think that it's a 'living' document. Sorry, but people do have differing opinions on that subject.

 

[J.E.D]

[
The Supreme Court disagrees, and they determine what is or is not Constitutional, not you and other partisan rightists, thankfully.

.’

Where does the constitution say the Supreme Court has authority to decide the constitutionality of laws? Answer - it doesn't. Now have someone read you the tenth amendment.

So, now - according to you - the SC has no Constitutional 'right' to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?

Unless I think that it's a 'living' document. Sorry, but people do have differing opinions on that subject.

The two are mutually exclusive. Living or not, the US Constitution is indeed a limiting document. That is an inescapable fact.

 

[shintao]

]It's their job to maintain the "general welfare" of the country.

If something is harming the country, it's Congress job to step in and enact legislation that stops the threat. In this case, runaway healthcare costs that were resulting in over 50% of bankruptcy's being filed every year.

Where is your evidence that national health care will in fact provide for the general welfare of the country.?

Medicare

 

[shintao]

You do understand that the US Constitution is a limiting document, do you not?

Unless I think that it's a 'living' document. Sorry, but people do have differing opinions on that subject.

The two are mutually exclusive. Living or not, the US Constitution is indeed a limiting document. That is an inescapable fact.

I asked you before where in the Constitution is says it is a limiting document. So far you have failed to show the article. Still waiting.....................

 

[thereisnospoon]

Unless I think that it's a 'living' document. Sorry, but people do have differing opinions on that subject.

The two are mutually exclusive. Living or not, the US Constitution is indeed a limiting document. That is an inescapable fact.

I asked you before where in the Constitution is says it is a limiting document. So far you have failed to show the article. Still waiting.....................

Yes I did.

If you want to play stupid, go right ahead.
Quite frankly I don't give s shit what you asked or demanded.
Do your own ******* homework. I am not here to nursemaid you or anyone else.
Here's a head start. Read the text and annotations of the Tenth Amendment. If that appears confusing or somehow ambiguous, then you simply lack the intelligence to understand.
Oh...Read this.A previous post. If you choose to ignore it and ask again "where is it" then you are simply arguing to argue.
The entire document was written for the express purpose of limiting the power of government.
The concept was that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
That the people are protected by this limiting document from the tyranny of democracy and tyranny of an all encompassing government.
Finally the Tenth Amendment spells this out in plain English.....
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.

What that means is, now pay attention because this is the last time you will get this explanation, is this. That if the Constitution does not state that the federal government "may" or "shall" it CANNOT.
The entire premise of this idea is that individuals have God given rights. The Constitution was written to spell out that idea and to insure those in government were well informed. The government serves the people. Not the other way around.
I cannot believe any person of reasonable intelligence would believe that government can basically do what it wants with impunity. Do you believe that?
If not, please explain your interpretation of how things are.
Oh. Here in this link is the explanation of enumerated powers.
This should be the end of your silly notion that the federal government has unlimited power.
Federalism | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[regent]

I may be wrong but as I remember it the Congress passed Obama-care under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The SCUS in a court case made the decision that Obama-care was constitutional but under the welfare clause. Same clause the Court found Social Security constitutional. That's as I remember.
The argument over loose interpretation and strict has been going on since the Washington administration. Liberals under Jefferson wanted strict, but after Jefferson became president he and the liberals accepted looser construction, and that's pretty much the way its been ever since. At one time the party out of power talked of getting back to the constitution but when in power again, they passed laws that demanded loose construction.

 

[Billo_Really]

Where is your evidence that national health care will in fact provide for the general welfare of the country.?

It won't. I said it's their job. I didn't say they did it well.

 

[shintao]

The two are mutually exclusive. Living or not, the US Constitution is indeed a limiting document. That is an inescapable fact.

I asked you before where in the Constitution is says it is a limiting document. So far you have failed to show the article. Still waiting.....................

Yes I did.

If you want to play stupid, go right ahead.
Quite frankly I don't give s shit what you asked or demanded.
Do your own ******* homework. I am not here to nursemaid you or anyone else.
Here's a head start. Read the text and annotations of the Tenth Amendment. If that appears confusing or somehow ambiguous, then you simply lack the intelligence to understand.
Oh...Read this.A previous post. If you choose to ignore it and ask again "where is it" then you are simply arguing to argue.
The entire document was written for the express purpose of limiting the power of government.
The concept was that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
That the people are protected by this limiting document from the tyranny of democracy and tyranny of an all encompassing government.
Finally the Tenth Amendment spells this out in plain English.....
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.

What that means is, now pay attention because this is the last time you will get this explanation, is this. That if the Constitution does not state that the federal government "may" or "shall" it CANNOT.
The entire premise of this idea is that individuals have God given rights. The Constitution was written to spell out that idea and to insure those in government were well informed. The government serves the people. Not the other way around.
I cannot believe any person of reasonable intelligence would believe that government can basically do what it wants with impunity. Do you believe that?
If not, please explain your interpretation of how things are.
Oh. Here in this link is the explanation of enumerated powers.
This should be the end of your silly notion that the federal government has unlimited power.
Federalism | LII / Legal Information Institute

So it is not in the constitution, and therefore not limited. just what I expected.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

So, now - according to you - the SC has no Constitutional 'right' to rule on the constitutionality of laws?

So you say they do have such a constitutional right. So where in the constitution is it?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Where is your evidence that national health care will in fact provide for the general welfare of the country.?

Medicare

HAHAHA. Medicare? You take money from 80% of the country and give it to the other 20% and call that GENERAL????