Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?

[SpidermanTuba]

torture violates the 8th amendment you stupid moron....just because there is also a federal law against torture, doesn't mean you don't also have a constitutional 8th amendment claim.

Ok. But I'm not making any constitutional claim. Tell you what, since you are so desperate to argue over the constitutional merits of this, and I'm not, why don't you go have an argument with yourself? I bet you win!

yet....you cannot provide a single court case to back up your opinion that the specific waterboarding conduct is torture

I just want you to know, I'm fully aware you've been phrasing your question in the form of a trick question every time.

 

[Bern80]

No, that's not what I think. When you're ready to debate with my actual thoughts instead of the thoughts you make up for me, let me know.

You said that the general walfare clause allows governemnt to tax for what ever is in the general wellfare. You have also stated that said clause is not linked to the following enumerated powers in that clause (despite Madison and Jefferson saying otherwise) powers. You have said it is indeed general. that you can't see the problem with same body deciding it needs tax revenue getting the final say on what is in the general wellfare is mind boggling.

So you're telling me Justice Owen Roberts and Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo never finished high school? Its amazing they were able to get appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just curious, what's the highest level of education YOU completed?

So you follow a quote telling me to not put words in your mouth by putting words in mine. That's almost as bright as say the enumerated powers are not spending power then saying they are. You never did clear that up by the way.

I am saying that political posts are occupied by fallable humans who can and do interpret the law incorrectly.

I will complete my requirements for a masters in the next month or so. You?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Is your master's degree going to be in law? Because the following was written by someone who has a law degree:

Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, [p66] limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [n12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

United States v. Butler

 

[Christopher]

They could state it's in the general wellfare for everyone to own a car as well.
They could. But I'd doubt they'd get reelected if they did that. That's the whole point of democracy through elected government. We the People determine what is the 'general welfare' by our will expressed through Congress. If you think public healthcare is not in the 'general welfare' then express that will through your vote (as I'm sure you have). But you personally do not get to determine what is in the general welfare, we as a nation determine that collectively.


Can you cite any actual court cases to back up your opinion? No, you cannot. I can and I have. You lose.

This is where you really lost me on your argument and it seems to be the main basis for your argument. The fact is we have become in general a more selfish and lazy people. Many policies are a reflection of this, such as the proposed health care bill.

You are right, we the people decide with our votes. The problem is that too many of the people today are more selfish and/or lazy. More people want the government to fix our problems since more people are reliant on the government already for certain things. More people feel they are entitled to certain “benefits” from the government, since they are already part of an “entitlement program”. The more and more entitlement programs the government adds, the more this increases dependence and selfishness, which also promotes complacency and laziness.

While we can discuss whether or not certain health care policies/bills are constitutional, that is not the main problem with health care reform. The problem is with we the people, our dependence on government, our complacency, our laziness and our selfishness. I see implementation of the health care bill as a means which will create another increase in these poor qualities of the people.

These are my own personal observations about our country, and many others whom I have talked to about it, so please take them for what they are worth.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

They could state it's in the general wellfare for everyone to own a car as well.
They could. But I'd doubt they'd get reelected if they did that. That's the whole point of democracy through elected government. We the People determine what is the 'general welfare' by our will expressed through Congress. If you think public healthcare is not in the 'general welfare' then express that will through your vote (as I'm sure you have). But you personally do not get to determine what is in the general welfare, we as a nation determine that collectively.


Can you cite any actual court cases to back up your opinion? No, you cannot. I can and I have. You lose.

This is where you really lost me on your argument and it seems to be the main basis for your argument. The fact is we have become in general a more selfish and lazy people. Many policies are a reflection of this, such as the proposed health care bill.

You are right, we the people decide with our votes. The problem is that too many of the people today are more selfish and/or lazy. More people want the government to fix our problems since more people are reliant on the government already for certain things. More people feel they are entitled to certain “benefits” from the government, since they are already part of an “entitlement program”. The more and more entitlement programs the government adds, the more this increases dependence and selfishness, which also promotes complacency and laziness.

While we can discuss whether or not certain health care policies/bills are constitutional, that is not the main problem with health care reform. The problem is with we the people, our dependence on government, our complacency, our laziness and our selfishness. I see implementation of the health care bill as a means which will create another increase in these poor qualities of the people.

These are my own personal observations about our country, and many others whom I have talked to about it, so please take them for what they are worth.

You lost me on that one. You're telling me getting to see a doctor makes people lazy?


BTW the U.S. is the 7th hardest working nation in the world

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_2004.jpg/400px-Yearly_working_time_2004.jpg

 

[Bern80]

You lost me on that one. You're telling me getting to see a doctor makes people lazy?


BTW the U.S. is the 7th hardest working nation in the world

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_2004.jpg/400px-Yearly_working_time_2004.jpg

Spidey you are hopeless. You can't even conduct an honest debate. You must just look at a post a go 'what can I take totally out of context and spin this time'.

Still waiting for you to decide whether the enumurations of section are 8 are spending powers or not. Or are you just to chicken shit to admit when you've jammed your foot down your throat?

With regards to how many hours our country works, so in your world the fact that people put in a lot of hours means we work hard? Get ******* real Spidey. Just because people put in hours doesn't mean they are being productive or that they are challenging themselves.

OF COURSE he isn't saying that you intellectually dishonest piece of shit. It isn't lazy to go to the doctor. If you had a shred of integrity you should have easily grasped that he is referring to our countries groiwing sense of entitlement, next on the list being healthcare. The problem with that is simple: the more directly the cost of something directly impacts you the more likely you are to wise decisions regarding it. If you feel you are entitled to have someone else pick up the bulk of the tab for your health care costs the less likely you are to make good decisions regarding your health.

 

[Yurt]

torture violates the 8th amendment you stupid moron....just because there is also a federal law against torture, doesn't mean you don't also have a constitutional 8th amendment claim.

Ok. But I'm not making any constitutional claim. Tell you what, since you are so desperate to argue over the constitutional merits of this, and I'm not, why don't you go have an argument with yourself? I bet you win!

yet....you cannot provide a single court case to back up your opinion that the specific waterboarding conduct is torture

I just want you to know, I'm fully aware you've been phrasing your question in the form of a trick question every time.

translation:

yurt is right, so i'll whine its a trick question and i'm not talking about constitutional stuffsss

lmao hypocrite....you demand others provide cases to back up their opinions, yet you will not do so yourself.

thanks for playing

next

 

[FA_Q2]

You lost me on that one. You're telling me getting to see a doctor makes people lazy?

I is not the act of going to the doctor that makes us lazy but the perception that I should not have to do anything to see that doctor. It is wrong to expect that doctor to give you a service without giving something in return.


Spider

I believe that the government may have the right to set up some sort of healthcare under that claim though I see it as a terrible move. The part where the bill fails constitutionality is under the “shall be uniform throughout the United States“ where it fails to levy the tax evenly (see unions kickback). Don’t forget the cornhusker agreement as well. It may have been removed but that was because of the backlash from the people. Those creating this legislation don’t seem to care what the constitution states, as happens during most legislation. I would also state that the requirement for you to purchase health care is also unconstitutional as that is a behavior not a tax. You have pointed out similar examples in previous posts and yet not made the connection that the general welfare clause ONLY relates to the levying of taxes and not the requirement for individuals to make a purchase.

 

[Christopher]

They could state it's in the general wellfare for everyone to own a car as well.
They could. But I'd doubt they'd get reelected if they did that. That's the whole point of democracy through elected government. We the People determine what is the 'general welfare' by our will expressed through Congress. If you think public healthcare is not in the 'general welfare' then express that will through your vote (as I'm sure you have). But you personally do not get to determine what is in the general welfare, we as a nation determine that collectively.


Can you cite any actual court cases to back up your opinion? No, you cannot. I can and I have. You lose.

This is where you really lost me on your argument and it seems to be the main basis for your argument. The fact is we have become in general a more selfish and lazy people. Many policies are a reflection of this, such as the proposed health care bill.

You are right, we the people decide with our votes. The problem is that too many of the people today are more selfish and/or lazy. More people want the government to fix our problems since more people are reliant on the government already for certain things. More people feel they are entitled to certain “benefits” from the government, since they are already part of an “entitlement program”. The more and more entitlement programs the government adds, the more this increases dependence and selfishness, which also promotes complacency and laziness.

While we can discuss whether or not certain health care policies/bills are constitutional, that is not the main problem with health care reform. The problem is with we the people, our dependence on government, our complacency, our laziness and our selfishness. I see implementation of the health care bill as a means which will create another increase in these poor qualities of the people.

These are my own personal observations about our country, and many others whom I have talked to about it, so please take them for what they are worth.

You lost me on that one. You're telling me getting to see a doctor makes people lazy?


BTW the U.S. is the 7th hardest working nation in the world

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_2004.jpg/400px-Yearly_working_time_2004.jpg

You've just provided evidence that intellectual dishonesty is a road block in debating health care reform in America; or debating anything for that matter.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Still waiting for you to decide whether the enumurations of section are 8 are spending powers or not.

The 1st clause of the 8th gives Congress all the spending power it needs for the following clauses. However - were the 1st clause to not exist - some of the following clauses would themselves imply spending power for specific things. This is not "redundant" because the clauses following the 1st also bestow regulatory power, whereas the first only gives spending power for the general welfare and common defense.

With regards to how many hours our country works, so in your world the fact that people put in a lot of hours means we work hard? Get ******* real Spidey. Just because people put in hours doesn't mean they are being productive or that they are challenging themselves.

Sure. Except for the fact the U.S. is the most productive nation in the world, if you ignore that fact, you're absolutely right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html

It isn't lazy to go to the doctor. If you had a shred of integrity you should have easily grasped that he is referring to our countries groiwing sense of entitlement, next on the list being healthcare. The problem with that is simple: the more directly the cost of something directly impacts you the more likely you are to wise decisions regarding it.

How is someone who can't afford health insurance and who has cancer supposed to make "wise decisions" in this case?

 

[FireGod]

How is someone who can't afford health insurance and who has cancer supposed to make "wise decisions" in this case?

The wise decision is to roll over and die.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I is not the act of going to the doctor that makes us lazy but the perception that I should not have to do anything to see that doctor.

Then don't have that perception.

It is wrong to expect that doctor to give you a service without giving something in return.

So those without money to pay in need of medical care should do what? Suck doctor dick?

I believe that the government may have the right to set up some sort of healthcare under that claim though I see it as a terrible move.

Tell that to all the seniors on Medicare.

The part where the bill fails constitutionality is under the “shall be uniform throughout the United States“ where it fails to levy the tax evenly

I'm not sure what you mean. The tax is not based on what state you live in. As far as I know the income tax is the same regardless of where you live - with the only exceptions being certain credits allowed for people in federal disaster areas.

I would also state that the requirement for you to purchase health care is also unconstitutional as that is a behavior not a tax.

I'm already required to purchase healthcare. Its called Medicare. It comes out of every paycheck. I don't get the benefits until I'm old.

 

[FA_Q2]

I is not the act of going to the doctor that makes us lazy but the perception that I should not have to do anything to see that doctor.

Then don't have that perception.

That is the perception and the fact of the matter. Sorry, there is no way that I should have to pay for the crack whore to go to the doctor because she blows all her money on drugs instead of getting off her lazy ass and get a job. Most people are poor because of poor decisions and I do not want my hard work stolen because of your ineptitude.

It is wrong to expect that doctor to give you a service without giving something in return.

So those without money to pay in need of medical care should do what? Suck doctor dick?

Hmmmm, why so condescending. We already have some plans in place for the very poor. I want to know why you think that someone should be obligated without compensation? My house needs painting, get over here and paint it.

Tell that to all the seniors on Medicare.

The constitutionality of that can be debatable as you are not required to purchase anything, it is an automatic enrollment whereas you are required to actually purchase a product or be fined. That is the unconstitutionality of it. If you had not noticed, Medicare is also in trouble finically, it is not the best model here. There are systemic issues that NEED to be fixed that simply covering people will not fix and actually make worse. We need actual reform of the SYSTEM and attack the cost of medical care then we can concentrate on helping those that need that help. I do like how you completely ignored the rest of my statement though.

The part where the bill fails constitutionality is under the “shall be uniform throughout the United States“ where it fails to levy the tax evenly

I'm not sure what you mean. The tax is not based on what state you live in. As far as I know the income tax is the same regardless of where you live - with the only exceptions being certain credits allowed for people in federal disaster areas.

It does change based on where you work. I STATED THE UNION DEAL AND YOU NOT ONLY IGNORED IT, YOU PURPOSELY DID NOT INCLUDE IT IN YOUR QUOTE. The United States are not states, it is a country and the tax must be levied evenly throughout the country. Giving union workers who do the EXACT same job as non union workers a break simply because they are part of a certain group is NOT evenly. THAT is special inters crap and should not be accepted in any bill.

I would also state that the requirement for you to purchase health care is also unconstitutional as that is a behavior not a tax.

I'm already required to purchase healthcare. Its called Medicare. It comes out of every paycheck. I don't get the benefits until I'm old.

That does not amount to a purchase; it is a tax for a service. In this plan you are required to P U R C H A S E health insurance. That is why a public option may well be constitutional but forcing you to buy into it is not.

Try putting out more than one liner crap with half quotes of my original post. Put some thought into it and we both may learn something.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Sorry, there is no way that I should have to pay for the crack whore to go to the doctor because she blows all her money on drugs instead of getting off her lazy ass and get a job.

So you think most people without HI don't have it because they are crack whores? Interesting.

Most people are poor because of poor decisions and I do not want my hard work stolen because of your ineptitude.

Everyone who gets cancer gets it because of their ineptitude? Interesting.

I want to know why you think that someone should be obligated without compensation?

No one is suggesting doctors work for free.

My house needs painting, get over here and paint it.

Are you going to die if I don't?

That is the unconstitutionality of it. If you had not noticed, Medicare is also in trouble finically

Its backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. If you think Medicare is in serious trouble, I'd recommend liquidating all of your assets valued in U.S. dollars and putting it all in foreign currency, bonds, and equity.

, it is not the best model here.

By all means, name one country where seniors get better medical care.

There are systemic issues that NEED to be fixed

A government program that is in need of constant updating and tinkering? NO WAY!!!!

We need actual reform of the SYSTEM and attack the cost of medical care

WE FINALLY AGREE ON SOMETHINGugh.

It does change based on where you work. I STATED THE UNION DEAL AND YOU NOT ONLY IGNORED IT, YOU PURPOSELY DID NOT INCLUDE IT IN YOUR QUOTE. The United States are not states, it is a country and the tax must be levied evenly throughout the country. Giving union workers who do the EXACT same job as non union workers a break simply because they are part of a certain group is NOT evenly. THAT is special inters crap and should not be accepted in any bill.

The requirement is that it be even throughout the states, not even throughout the non-union and union workers.

 

[Bern80]

The 1st clause of the 8th gives Congress all the spending power it needs for the following clauses. However - were the 1st clause to not exist - some of the following clauses would themselves imply spending power for specific things. This is not "redundant" because the clauses following the 1st also bestow regulatory power, whereas the first only gives spending power for the general welfare and common defense.

Dude you can't even keep straight your own arguments. The first clause is not the power to spend for whatever the government wants. It is the power to tax FOR THE PURPOSES later enumerated. Hell we could even operate under your incorrect interpretation of the clause and say that government can tax for whatever it can spin to be for the general welfare. Even then REQUIRING people to purchase health insurance would still be unconstitutional because such a mandate is not a tax.

Sure. Except for the fact the U.S. is the most productive nation in the world, if you ignore that fact, you're absolutely right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html

Again productive does mean challenged. I can produce a lot of widgets in 8 hours if you want me to. That doesn't make some great contributor to society.

How is someone who can't afford health insurance and who has cancer supposed to make "wise decisions" in this case?

Best place to start? Stop making excuses. If you want things to be different then they are you have to take account for all of the factors that contribute to your station in life. The one liberals ignore and ironically the easiest one to change is yourself. I swear to go liberals are literally allergic to personal responsibility. They simply can not do it and you prove every single time you post with every excuse you make.

 

[boedicca]

Forcing people to buy a product or service they do not want is unconstitutional.

The example that is oft used of state mandated auto insurance is a red herring. State's require proof of liability coverage to compensate for harm caused to others, not insurance to protect an individual from his own actions/lifestyle/circumstances.

There's also the issue of special rights for groups due based on geographical location at the expense of others in similar circumstances.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Bern80 - I've cited two Supremer Court opinions - both written by men who know far more about the law than you or I. You, on the other hand, have cited no jurisprudence whatsoever. Unless you have any legal precedent you can cite to back your claim up, I'm considering this argument over. You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not prepared to argue over the law in Bern08's Magical Fantasyland Where He Is Always Right About The Law Jurisprudence Be Damned - I'm only prepared to argue over the actual, real law, that actually exists, in practical reality. If you brought a suit before the courts which somehow rested on the general welfare clause meaning what you say it means - YOU WOULD LOSE

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Forcing people to buy a product or service they do not want is unconstitutional.

Taxation is not unconstitutional.

The example that is oft used of state mandated auto insurance is a red herring. State's require proof of liability coverage to compensate for harm caused to others, not insurance to protect an individual from his own actions/lifestyle/circumstances.

I guess you've never heard of no-fault insurance states.

There's also the issue of special rights for groups due based on geographical location at the expense of others in similar circumstances.

What geographical location are you referring to?

 

[Bern80]

Bern80 - I've cited two Supremer Court opinions - both written by men who know far more about the law than you or I. You, on the other hand, have cited no jurisprudence whatsoever. Unless you have any legal precedent you can cite to back your claim up, I'm considering this argument over. You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not prepared to argue over the law in Bern08's Magical Fantasyland Where He Is Always Right About The Law Jurisprudence Be Damned - I'm only prepared to argue over the actual, real law, that actually exists, in practical reality. If you brought a suit before the courts which somehow rested on the general welfare clause meaning what you say it means - YOU WOULD LOSE

I really don't have to cite any case law. You are relying on the presumption that basically every ruling in every case, about every law gets interpreted correctly 100% of the time. THAT is the reality of YOUR position.

Besides that, for the sake of argument, I accepted your defintion of the general welfare clause and yet you keep finding ways to dodge even after that. How can you fit something (a mandate to buy health insurance) that is not a tax and arguable not 'general' under the ability to tax for the general welfare?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I really don't have to cite any case law.

Then this conversation is over. Good day.