Is it Constitutional?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Nov 7, 2009.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,132
    Likes Received:
    221
    Rep Deal of Ga, is opposed to Obama care beacuse it is not constitutional. In addition, he is concerned that illegal alliens will be utilizing care as well at the expense of the Americian Tax payer :thumbs:
     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I do not believe those parts of the bill forcing people to buy medical insurance or be fined are constitutional. Looking at the bill as a whole it is probably treasonable since it advocates the overthrow of the Constitutional Republic; but that has never worried Congress much, especially democrats.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probalbly 90% of what the government already does is unconstitutional. Anything additional it does will probably be unconstitutional as well.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,132
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ken, you are absolutely wrong. What the government does is only 88.8% unconstitutional! :type:
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I rounded to the nearest 10%. :laugh:
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, illegal aliens are already utilizing health care at the expense of the American taxpayer, but that's a separate issue. The question of whether the federal government providing health insurance to the public is constitutional is "yes". Healthcare is a form of commerce, and the federal government is constitutionally permitted to regulate commerce.

    That doesn't mean I support a federalized healthcare system, however.
     
  7. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course a health care "Public Option" is not constitutional and they know it. Yesterday I was listening to a radio show and South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn told Fox's Napolitano that, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” (SOURCE). I heard that statement with my own ears! The fact is that most of our elected officials don't care about the U.S. Constitution. For many of them, the Constitution is nothing but a road block to get around. The college I teach at passed out copies of the U.S. Constitution this week at a S.G.A. event. I was impressed, so I got a few copies and handed them out in my classes as well. I can only hope that students will read them and start thinking about government in a Constitutional context. I am a realist though, most of them probably lost their copies before they got home that day.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would the general welfare of the US be improved if every person had regular access to a doctor?
     
  9. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the same logic - would the general welfare of the U.S. be improved if every person had regular access to a new car, a 2,000 sq ft home, cellular phones, an annual vacation at the seashore, etc...?
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps, but the call for promoting the general welfare is in the Preamble, which is not part of Constitutional codification.
     
  11. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Medical treatment is slightly more basic than a new car.
     
  12. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everyone in the United States does have access to doctors. We have things called Urgent Cares, Emergency Rooms, Clinics, and Health Departments (etc). People who want basic medical attention can get it. The answer to the health care "problem" is not more government, but incentives for doctors (etc) to do more pro bono work at free clinics and hospitals (etc). Drug store chains such as CVS and Wallgreens have also started having on-site clinics. In other words, there are many ways to get health care to those who cannot afford traditional care.

    The "public option" is going to be a nightmare for those enrolled. It is going to be worse than the private insurance companies. All these people are doing is trading in one bureaucracy for an even larger one. Worse yet, they are going to have liars (politicians) in D.C. playing games with their healthcare. Mark my words, it is going to be a nightmare for those who get stuck with it. Those who can afford their own healthcare will still do far better. Any Democrat idea that this plan will level the playing field is unrealistic.

    As for the United States Constitution, it is the law of the land. If it does not provide the federal government the authority to act in an area than the federal government must stay out of that area (Amendment 9). Healthcare is not a federal issue. The federal government has no constitutional right to involve itself in healthcare (period). The federal government meddling in healthcare is illegal. They can justify their lawlessness anyway they wish, but at the end of the day they are still guilty of violating the law of the land.

    O, and this problem is not limited to healthcare. The federal government has violated the Constitution in many ways. This is just the latest and greatest example.

    For those of us who love the Constitution, who love the American Republic, the past many years have been truly dark days. Sadly, I suspect it is going to get much, much darker. Our nation is moving away from republicanism (as a philosophy) and towards a more socialistic form of government. Some accuse President Obama of being a socialist. I say he is no more or less a socialist than Bill Clinton or George W Bush.
     
  13. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is kind of a bad situation, the Republican Party that used to stand for limited government, the Constitution, and individual liberty, to see it go down the path that it has. It puts a divide between those of us who really want a government run as it should be and leaders that want to serve. One side, which I agree with at the moment, says that the Republican Party is beyond repair, and the other, says the Republican Party can be made the party is used to be, and really contrast with the Democrats. This is how OR feels, and I greatly respect his opinions. What is bad is that the divide only encourages the maniacs now in charge. Sometimes I wonder if the third party way is the best path. All I am looking for is a government that honors the Constitution, has honest leaders, and encourages individual achievement and liberty.

    I really think we are so far from the Constitution now, as other posters said, that it makes very little difference if the health care bill is Constitutional or not. There are ways I am sure to have solved the health care problems (price, access, profit, law suits, etc) without government involvement.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
  15. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    ". . . the Republican Party that used to stand for limited government . . . ."

    The Republican Party under Lincoln stood for federalism i.e. big government. THAT is what Lincoln's War was basically about.
     
  16. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've never understood that argument. How anyone can argue that the Confederacy had any legitimacy is beyond me. If they did not like President Lincoln's positions on slavery they should have used the political system to defeat him, and the Republicans, in the next election. Pulling out of the country was not the right answer. During the Constitutional Convention these same southern States threatened to pull out over the issue of slavery. The leading founders understood the size of that mistake and the convention pushed the issue of slavery off until after 1808. I don't think the founding fathers, the majority of the leading ones anyway, would have supported the South's decision to suceed from the Union.
     
  17. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,132
    Likes Received:
    221
    Several misconceptions!

    1. If you say the CSA had no legitimacy to succeeded, then you must believe the USA has no legitimacy to succeed from England

    2. Lincoln was elected with only 39% of the vote
    I wonder what would have happened if they had Instant Recall Voting

    3. Slavery was NOT the main issue of the War Between the States*. States rights were. In fact we have the same issue today, with the Federal Govt overstepping its bounds

    Next?

    Salty
     
    #17 Salty, Nov 8, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2009
  18. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sigh........
    AGAIN.....please show us where a person was denied treatment to save their life.
    Cancer?....No. There has never been a case of cancer being cured. In remission, perhaps, but never cured. Otherwise, that is called a, "Cure For Cancer!".
    Common cold?.....hahahaha
    Emergency treatment?....we do that all the time. Please show me an instance of a doctor in an emergency ward saying, " No insurance? I'm, not saving his/her life!"
    So medical care is slightly more basic than you think it is.
    Abort/Reset/Try Again?...........
     
  19. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    The CSA did not succeed. In fact, they failed to attain nationhood. However, they did secede.
     
  20. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cancer is not a monolithic condition. Many cancers can be removed and the patient cured. It depends on the type, the locale, and whether or not it has metastasized beyond hope.
     

Share This Page

Loading...