Would Thomas Jefferson be for Universal health Care?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Sep 22, 2008.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    Thomas Jefferson

    1791 - Opinion on National Bank

    Category: Constitutional Interpretation

    They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

    Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition), Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., 3:148.

    _______________________________________________

    What say you?
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my opinion, no, Thomas Jefferson would not be for nationalized health care.
     
  3. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nor would TJ be in favor of a standing Army or a large Navy, nor income taxes, nor a lot of things we all take for granted.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783

    Then we should dissolve them all or change the constitution.
     
    #4 Revmitchell, Sep 22, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2008
  5. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, the Federalists took the necessary and proper clause and rand with it pretty well.

    Jefferson was not in the US during the writing and ratification of the Constitution. He was our man in Paris.
     
  6. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    If he changes with the times he might.

    If he stays in his time he could just pay with chickens...
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783

    The point of the thread was to discuss if the constitution actually supports UH
     
  8. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    The constitution can and should be amended so that we stay current with the needs of the citizens. If we didn't change the constitution, blacks would still be slaves or second class citizens instead of running for president.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783

    It can be. But UH is unconstitonal as it currently stands.
     
  10. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    What article of the constitution does it violate? Just because Thomas Jefferson argued against this kind of support by the government doesn't have any bearing.
     
  11. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Since the thread is already off course, I'll throw this in: Thomas Jefferson was in favor of a "strong" Navy. In fact, it's because of him and fighting the muslim Barbary Pirates that we developed a strong navy.

    As for universal health care, I would say not. Times may have changed but in a few years, the constitutionality of anything will be a moot point and a faded memory after we have assimilated into the New World Order.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong question. The question should be "What part of the Constitution gives the Fed Govt the authority, power, etc., to do something, not "Hey let's do X" unless the Constitution forbids it...and even then, let's just do it anyway.
     
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    Actually it is the X admendment (10th) that prohibits activites such as UH:
    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.


    Case closed
     
  14. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is what I was responding to:


    It can be. But UH is unconstitonal as it currently stands.


    I asked why it is unconstitutional. Read the post before responding blindly.
     
  15. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. If a state wants to implement a state-wide collective health care system using state taxes, it has the Constitutional power to do so. Until I see a constitutional amendment, I do not see where the Constitution grants the federal government the power to manage a national health care system.

    I also do not see where the federal government has the power to create national drug laws and intrude on the states methods of handling the issue. I do not see where the federal government has the power to create agencies like the IRS and the FDA that write their own regulations without congressional vote and enforce them.

    Why is it that people think that the federal government has to regulate and manage everything?! It seems that our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other amendments are clear that whatever powers the Constitution and its amendments do not delineate to the federal government, such powers belong to the states or people. So many people and politicians seem to forget (or ignore) that such a distinction exists in the supreme law of the land.
     
  16. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately, Jefferson's idea of a strong navy (as opposed to NO army) would not have been possible but for the large ships commissioned by Adams. Jefferson's idea of ships were fast and small ships to keep it cheap. The Babary Pirate Wars were a tribute to American toughness and innovation.
     
  17. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    You're right. I wish we had more of that toughness and innovation in today's leaders. But all the statesmen seem to have died decades ago. :tear:
     

Share This Page

Loading...