Is National Health Insurance Constitutional?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Aug 20, 2009.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    ................In short, as Madison argued, Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can only do so for purposes of common defense or general welfare, in the service of the powers granted to it elsewhere in Article I.

    Second, “Necessary and Proper” gives Congress the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.” Like the general welfare clause, this clause was not a stand-alone grant of power to Congress. Rather, it authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary (and also proper) to make the other grants of authority in Article I effectual.

    In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution.This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started.........


    More Here
     
  2. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    obama doesn't believe the constution should exist, so he has no problem violating it.
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Federally provided healthcare is not unconstitutional. Medicare is an example. Federal programs such as Medicare fall under the commerce, taxing and spending powers granted in the Constitution. I'm flat-out against federalized healthcare, but it is not unconstitutional.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    Since it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level. And the op addresses the commerce clause and why it does not apply.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The OP is wrong. Both the commerce and taxation sections of the Constitution have been tried and tested in the Supreme Court numerous times since 1824, with rulings that are contrary to the OP opinion.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790


    The op is correct
     
  7. SeekingTruth

    SeekingTruth
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    1
    IMHO the OP is correct. The writers never dreamed that the legislative, executive and judicial branches would all make such wild extensions of the Constitution. They believed a strict interpretation was required and would be adhered to. Privileges and authorities all three branches have arrogated to themselves are not identified in the Constitution. Only by very loose interpretation and a good imagination can they be found.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, the issue has been reviewed by federal courts numerous times over the last 200 years, and this issues has generally never been found to be unconstitutional.
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Madison was wrong and/or lied. The Constitution was a scam as the anti-constitutionalists claimed. We got the legal system that Madison wanted to give us.
     
  10. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johnv, don't you know? The righties on the BB have the power to overrule SCOTUS if they disagree? I think it is in Article XXXV or so. :rolleyes:
     
  11. RAdam

    RAdam
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    The SCOTUS has been wrong numerous times. Like, for instance, Roe v Wade.

    Modern interpretation of the constitution is wrong. It's not what the SCOTUS thinks in 2009 that matters, it is what the writers and signers meant in 1787.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    SCOTUS has indeed reversed itself on specific occaisions, such as Plessey v Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education. But AFIK, it has never outright overturned its own ruling (if anyone has case law to that effect, please let me know).

    I figured it would be a matter of time before someone commented about "modern interpretations" of the constitution. That's why I noted that this issue has been heard as far back as the early 1800's.
     
  13. RAdam

    RAdam
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    And it is clear what the framers meant, which is all that matters.
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    George Washington was a framer, and he engaged in many actions that were met with the same "not constitutional" criticisms used here.
     
  15. RAdam

    RAdam
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your arguments are weak.

    What is the question we ask when reading the bible? What did the author intend? That's what matters. It doesn't matter what this means to me, a 21st century American, but what did it mean when it was written. The meaning of the bible is static, it means today what it did back then.

    Much the same it shoudl be with the constitution. What did the authors intend? I shouldn't be saying what I think but should be trying to figure out what they meant. It's pretty clear what they meant.
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the contrary, those who claim an unconstitutionality where none exists are weak. They have no comprehension of how the constitution works.
    You're right, but interpreting scripture is not the same as interpreting the Constitution. The constitution says that the Supreme Court decide what the framers meant, and if something is constitutional. The supereme court has already heard the argument claimed in this manner, numerous times, since the early 1800's.
     
  17. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Obviously you are not a Constitutional scholar.

    Nothing the Congress has passed in recent years is constitutional except perhaps an over bloated budget. The Federal government is tasked in the Constitution with defending the country and delivering the mail. The postal system is indicative of the inability of the Federal Government to do anything. Only the blood of our young men has defended the country in spite of all those the stupid liberals who inhabit DC swilling slop at the government trough.

    Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional. The list is too long to continue
     
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    Dr. Alan keys who holds a constitutional scholar agrees that is is uncosntitutional.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That makes two of us, I suppose. But it does not take a constitutional scholar to know that the job of interpreting the constitution falls to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS has heard this same argument since the time of Washington.
    Knowing
    Interesting you should see the ability to have a letter delivered in an average of 1.5 days for less than 50 cents to be inefficient. But that's off-topic.
    Then he is welcome to sue and take the case to SCOTUS. They will likely strike it down.
     
  20. SeekingTruth

    SeekingTruth
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    1
    In just what part of the Constitution does it state
    . It merely states that
    In Section 2,
    Of course to liberals, as with the rest of the Constitution, these two paragraphs have meanings and powers that no other human being can find.

    The Constitution does not work. It is to be applied as written, not interpreted. Show me one place in the Constitution where the power of interpretation is granted.
     

Share This Page

Loading...