Why The Health care Bills are Unconstitutional

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is exactly why we must challenge every time someone regurgitate lies as truth. 'General welfare' does not give congress the power to do whatever the hell it wants.

Plus its to PROMOTE not PROVIDE.

if they meant provide they would have said it, like they did with the general defense.

Whatever i've come to realize that those on the far spectrum of both sides of this issue are full of lies anyway.

Hell i found death panels in the stimulus bill and NOT ONE of the people who rail against the claim of death panels has even bothered to try and challenge the fact that there are death panels in the form of benefit advisory councils. WEAK SAUCE

 

[Navy1960]

ButlerCase

T]he [General Welfare] 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, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … 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. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Your citation tends to support the "unlimited powers" interpretation rather than the "enumerated powers" interpretation.

What's your point?

That not only is the clause an introduction the enumerated powers, it also shows that the clause itself is a specific power to tax and spend and is not a power that grants the Govt. "unlimited power" to legislate on matters of welfare, especially on matters of local welfare.. Yes the Govt. has the power to tax those that are within a healthcare system that transacts from state to state, but it does not have the power thr4ough that tax to compel and individual to enter into that healthcare system as a means to promote the general welfare. Where many of the "living document" theorists run afoul is the leap that tax and spending for the general welfare equates to unlimted power to legislate for the general welfare. If this were true, then the Govt. can begin to assume that regulating for the general welfare extends into every single aspect of Americans lives which it clearly does not, if the assumption of unlimited power is correct then every single unconsitutional law overturned by the Supreme Court passed by congress would have to be overturned. Some come to mind, a womans right to choose, if it is a womans right to choose and the general welfare gives the Govt. the right to take the choice of healthcare away from a person , then you have setup a conflict within the constitution itself. The bottom line is that taxing and spending for the General Welfare are NOT unlimted powers contrary to how much many on the progressive side of this argument would want them to be. Even in Butler as I cited those powers are not unlimted.

 

[Polk]

Promote the General Welfare is in the Preamble and Provide is in Article 1 Sec. 8, however this does not give Congress unlimted legislative powers to legislate no matter how much the " living document" views and those who side with Hamilton the matter would like it too. There are literally numerous cases where the Supreme Court has struck down all or part of legislation based on constitutional merits. In fact as I poseted elsewhere, the Supreme Courts view on the matter is quit clear

ButlerCase
T]he [General Welfare] 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, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … 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. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.


but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Same Justice Story commenting on this clause...

It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a reason why it's called the tax and spend clause, and not the compel for general welfare clause.

The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8
is an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow
and not itself a grant of power.

James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

Which state does a mandate favor? Which state does it place a higher burden on than others?

 

[Navy1960]

Let's see where to start, with the current bill, it places a tax burdan uneqully on those do not have insurance, in all states. More specifically, in the current bill, mandates place an undue burden on all those individuals in states where thier states have to pay the costs of healthcare that other states do not have to pay or are exempt from. This bill woudl still have problems constitutionally if the mandates were removed, but, I do understand why they are in there, because that is the offset and without it the entire premise of the bill falls apart, however Individual mandates can be struck down on any number of grounds, and the implication that the tax and spend clause gives the Congress power to regulate a person purcahse a service from a private entity and justify that somehow under the tax and spend clause, is a big stretch. Yes the Govt. can regulate the healthcare industry and even health insurance and also tax it if they choose, and in doing so they are providing for the general welfare and is consistant with case law, as well as the constitution, but to take from that a new meaning that it also gives Govt. the power to compel purchase of a consumer prodect or service for the general welfare has little if any standing in any clause of the constitution. especially the tax and spend clause.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If these guys are going to make a constitutional argument, they have to use all the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment ends with the words "...or to the People." The First Amendment includes the words "...petition congress for a redress of grievances." Together they mean the People may require Congress to address those situations which the People find bothersome or vexatious and remedy them. Considering the stated intent of the Constitution to "promote the general welfare," any policy is permissible.

So the government can mandate that you buy X pounds of tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach a year and then slap you with a punitive tax if you don't comply?

So the government can mandate that everyone buy a house with no more than 100 square feet per occupant or tax you if you don't comply?

So the government can tell you that you have to buy a new car every year and tax you if you don't comply?

An argument can be made that the three examples above are for the general welfare of the country and its citizens and any policy is permissible right?

Yes.

.

So here we have it folks Joe Squeal believes the government should:

• Tell you what to eat
• Tell you what to wear
• Tell you what to drive
• Tell you how often to buy a car or anything else
• Tell you what kind of car or anything else to buy
• Tell where you should live
• Tell you how big your house can be
• Tell you how to raise your kids
• etc etc etc

And most important of all he believes that the government should be able to confiscate as much of your income as necessary to pay for the means to enforce its total control over your life or in other words all of your income.

After all it's for the general welfare

As I said only a person who can't handle the responsibility of being free to choose his own destiny would believe the government should be able to exercise total control over his life.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Promote the General Welfare is in the Preamble and Provide is in Article 1 Sec. 8, however this does not give Congress unlimted legislative powers to legislate no matter how much the " living document" views and those who side with Hamilton the matter would like it too. There are literally numerous cases where the Supreme Court has struck down all or part of legislation based on constitutional merits. In fact as I poseted elsewhere, the Supreme Courts view on the matter is quit clear

ButlerCase
T]he [General Welfare] 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, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … 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. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.


but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Same Justice Story commenting on this clause...

It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a reason why it's called the tax and spend clause, and not the compel for general welfare clause.

The General Welfare clause in Article I Section 8
is an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow
and not itself a grant of power.

James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

Which state does a mandate favor? Which state does it place a higher burden on than others?

Gosh there are a bunch. Florida for example wont get any of the medicare cuts the other states get and they wont have to pay the federal tax on private insurance plans.

Try using google there are a ton.

 

[Navy1960]

The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."
Is Government Health Care Constitutional? - WSJ.com


As I said, when those who support the bill are ready to overturn Roe, in order to make the case that these Individual mandates are constitutional then perhaps the Hamilton view from the 30's might hold a little more sway rather than just looking to the tax and spend clause as a means to justify the Individual mandate.

 

[NO!bama08]

""That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

Lying bastard.