Do you believe the Constitution has been violated?

[Cammie]

There are not people dying on the streets. QUOTE]

 

 

Unfortunately, there are. Dying in the streets, under the bridges, in tenaments and inner cities, in rural areas and urban. Ask anyone who works with the poor of America.

[Cammie]

On the issue of constitutionality - if that is the only objection - does that mean that if your STATE instituted mandatory health insurance it would be ok. Because then it is not a federal action (perhaps limited by the Constitution) but then it would fall under those powers "not reserved to the federal government."

 

Would that be ok? If not, why not?

 

 

On the Commerce Clause - historically it has been read pretty broadly. If memory serves me, it allowed the federal government to tie federal highway money to forcing states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 (something that was clearly a state decision). If you can expand it to cover that...I am guessing you can expand it to cover most anything.

[KnitWit]

Good question Cammie, especially in light of the fact that more and more states are lining up to sue based on constitutionality to NOT take part.

 

Thanks for asking

[mommaduck]

That is just ridiculous! It is not a penalty...either you get a credit or you don 't. If I am married my rate is such and such...BUT no one is forcing anyone to get married...

 

If I buy a new efficient boiler this year, I will get a credit. If I choose not to, no one will fine me and they won't have to hire 17,000 new IRS agents to make sure I didn't buy one..

 

Absolutely NOT the same thing....

 

 

~~Faithe

 

True, but it still has an effect. There are those that are avoiding civil marriage because of penalties.

[TXMary2]

There are not people dying on the streets. QUOTE]

 

 

Unfortunately, there are. Dying in the streets, under the bridges, in tenaments and inner cities, in rural areas and urban. Ask anyone who works with the poor of America.

 

It is not a number that is disproportionate to the population like in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. There will always be homeless people and the government CANNOT fix it. The "poor" in America are nothing like the poor in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. It is flat out, blatant fear mongering to claim that people are "dying in the streets" as if it is some sort of pandemic.

[MomLovesClassics]

Yes. I prefer to say nothing more.

[Cammie]

 

It is not a number that is disproportionate to the population like in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. There will always be homeless people and the government CANNOT fix it. The "poor" in America are nothing like the poor in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. It is flat out, blatant fear mongering to claim that people are "dying in the streets" as if it is some sort of pandemic.

 

Ok, I live in a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY (and I don't know why you capitalize it all the time) and I have lived in Washington DC. I have actually walked past dead bodies (yes plural) of homeless people that died on the street of our nation's capitol. I have yet to have that experience in this THIRD WORLD COUNTRY. I don't think that is fear mongering. No more so than claiming that health care reform is akin to the US delving into socialism or that we have destroyed the US Constitution by taking this step.

 

Of course, if you don't believe that poverty is real and present in the US I certainly won't be able to convince you.

[wapiti]

On the issue of constitutionality - if that is the only objection - does that mean that if your STATE instituted mandatory health insurance it would be ok. Because then it is not a federal action (perhaps limited by the Constitution) but then it would fall under those powers "not reserved to the federal government."

 

Would that be ok? If not, why not?.

 

I believe Massachusetts has such a mandate. However, my understanding is that the system there is broke - deeply in debt - and that the numbers of uninsured were not decreased by as much as hoped. Both premiums and health care costs there have skyrocketed. Massachusetts is not exactly a shining example of how well such a system works. But that's just from what I've read - perhaps someone here in Mass. can give us their opinion on how well that is working.

 

I have no idea whether the Mass. mandate was ever challenged on any constitutional grounds - I'd be interested to know.

 

On the Commerce Clause - historically it has been read pretty broadly. If memory serves me, it allowed the federal government to tie federal highway money to forcing states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 (something that was clearly a state decision). If you can expand it to cover that...I am guessing you can expand it to cover most anything.

This is an excellent point. In the discussion I was reading last night, some felt that the S. Ct.'s decision in that case was incorrect. Nonetheless, it could be an avenue for Congress in a future law - but that's not in the Senate bill at issue here. Moreover, as mentioned above, the matter is so controversial that several states are suing over this, and I think it's a decent bet that at least some states would decline federal funding in order to avoid enacting a mandate.

[Parrothead]

I appreciate your response.

 

If a person feels all or most taxes are unconstitutional - then I don't feel that it speaks to the particular issue of health care reform. I can now see that you have a blanket opposition to all sorts of government mandates. Ok that helps me understand your POV.

 

 

Yes, yes I do.

Again, Parrothead, I had no debate or argument in mind. Thank you for sharing.

Your welcome. I don't mind sharing my opinioin. Otherwise I would not be here. The arguing and such turns me away from these types of threads. I swear all the time I won't get sucked in, but inevitably I do.

 

 

I am confident in our gov't system and confident that if the Constitution has been violated in some way that I don't know about, that the Supreme Court will rectify it.

 

I don't share your confidence in the SCOTUS. There really is no way around it because of the way it is set up. The court is biased politically. And IMHO the whole SNAFU about the Establishment Clause is a great example. That is an entirely different thread for a different day.

 

***Oops!***

 

I did not mean "Have you read the bill?", but "Have you read the Constitution?"

Yup

 

So it is okay to take peoples money and use it for "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." but it is not okay to take peoples money to help other people? :confused:

 

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. :tongue_smilie: I guess my priorities are different than yours. I personally believe that systems that help people are vastly more important than "infrastructure, the military, courts, etc." Don't get me wrong, these things are vitally important too but IMHO they are not as important as helping our fellow man.

 

Like I said, agreeing to disagree. :D

Help should not be mandated. It is not help anymore. It is tax.

 

editing: yes, I have studied the Constitution as well as the personal writings of several of the ff

I'm just starting to get into the writings. It amazes me how skewed the FF opinions have become because people read too much into them.

[Parrothead]

Ok, a few more questions:

 

Are you opposed to reform because it is unconstitutional or do you believe it is unconstitutional because you oppose reform?

 

Also, if there was a constitutional amendment along the lines of "The federal government shall be granted the right to require health insurance of all citizens" would you still oppose the reform?

 

Just trying to understand the contours of the argument. Thanks!

I oppose the reform because I believe it is unconstitutional. Yes. If there was an amendment as you described I would oppose it because the amendment would be unconstitutional. I really don't think it would make it as far as an amendment or someone would be pushing it as such.

 

Ok, but HOW does it?

 

:bigear:

I think it is going to fall under the Commerce clause. But it could be a states rights issue.

 

 

If this nation really wants to "help our fellow man" in the form of "universal health care", let 2/3rds of the states sign on to it.

 

 

a

:iagree::iagree:

 

but I believe in an individual's right to choose. The constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, but does not give the right to force the citizenry to purchase things against their will.

:iagree: I think the right to choose is going to be the turning point when it is all said and done. Because if we do not have the right to choose about health insurance then why do we have the right to choose abortion. Why do we have the right to choose which car we drive, which house we live in, how many times we get married or don't.

 

If the government says we do not have the right to choose we are no longer a democratic republic. We are living in some type of dictatorship.

 

Can anyone quote that part of the Constitution which they believe has been violated?

 

OR Can anyone quote that part of the Constitution which they believe has provided for the federal government to act in this manner?

Nope, I can't quote verbatim. Look at the Commerce clause to start.

 

The analysis of constitutionality would likely fall on the distinctions between federal and state functions, the federal authority to direct state action and the federal authority to govern interstate commerce. Legally these doctrines have no real meaning except as they are interpreted by case law precedent. I suspect that the next 15 years of my life and livelihood will be devoted to working all this out in the system. Whether I agree or disagree with the reform would not effect whether I believe it will stand up to a constitutional challenge. Interesting times!

States rights is going to be another angle to consider during all the constitutionality debates.

 

I agree with you that it will be years before this is all finally settled.

 

It especially does not have the right to force citizenry to purchase things from private business against their will. It might sound counter-intuitive, but it could have been more constitutional to include a public option or even to provide universal health care, even though I'm not thrilled with that.

 

Some critics claim that this bill is solely to raise revenue in the short term, and in the long term we will end up with universal health care because of skyrocketing health care costs and law suits about constitionality.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

It is judicially unprecedented "to force someone under pain of federal fine and/or imprisonment to purchase something from a private party simply as a consequence of being alive." (a quote from another site.)

:iagree:

yes. I believe the Constitution has not only been violates, it has been trampled and our forfathers (on both sides of the aisle) would be rolling in their graves. This whole mess looks to me like the culmination of 3 generations of the Modern Schooling System. There...I said it.

 

~~Faithe

:iagree:I wholeheartedly agree with what you have said.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Parrothead

[EmilyK]

I haven't done any research on this, but I would think it is permitted by the Commerce Clause. Don't *just* read the Commerce Clause (though I have), also read the long jurisprudence on the subject written by justices all over the political spectrum.

 

I think this is one of the ways that the internet distorts things. The current Supreme Court is fairly conservative and I'm sure will find this law constitutional if they even grant cert, which they probably won't. I doubt it is a close enough call to even be interesting as a constitutional law matter.

 

Again, I'm not sure I like the new law, but I want to state the reality of the constitutionality.

[Heidi]

I am by no means an expert on the Constitution, but I have been trying to educate myself. When you read what the Founding Fathers believed about the proper role of government and you read the Constitution, it is a fairly easy document to understand.

When you listen to all the various "interpretations" that have been made of the Constitution over the years and the so-called "experts" of it, it becomes fuzzy. Meanings have become distorted in order to seem to be in favor of more federal power.

 

That being said, here is my take on it.

 

What is a right? William Blackstone wrote:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (Commentaries on the Laws of England)

Here are some of our rights:

The right of self-government

The right to bear arms for self-defense

The right to own, develop, and dispose of property

The right to make personal choices

The right of free conscience

The right to choose a profession

The right to choose a mate

The right to beget one's kind

The right to assemble

The right to petition

The right to free speech

The right to a free press

The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labors

The right to improve one's position through barter and sale

The right to contrive and invent

The right to privacy

The right to provide personal security

The right to of free association

and so on.

 

The right to affordable healthcare is not a natural right. Healthcare is a service; a good; a product. (So is education).

 

What is the purpose of Government? The purpose of Government is the protection of our unalienable rights, as stated in the Declaration. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

 

To protect our rights, taxes are needed. Read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution (it's online). "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.. to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" Some of these is to maintain a military, establish post offices and post roads, etc.

 

The purpose of Government is not to grant rights. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. But when Government starts "granting rights", such as healthcare, our actual inherent and natural rights are encroached upon.

 

Our monetary property, through taxes, are taken from us, not for the purpose of providing for the common defense and welfare, but for the granting of a good or service to others. To provide a good or service would be fine if the tax was uniform (Article 1, section 8). But when you tax the haves and give to the have-nots, it becomes legalized plunder, not charity.

 

If someone were to steal our property, we would turn to the law for protection. When the law IS the one who steals, who do we then turn to? The government, whose purpose is to protect our rights, is now the one who is taking our rights.

Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (it's online).

 

This says nothing of the power the Government just assumed by passing this healthcare bill, which I believe is the main reason it was passed.

 

All right... bash away. :glare:

[6packofun]

 

Unfortunately, there are. Dying in the streets, under the bridges, in tenaments and inner cities, in rural areas and urban. Ask anyone who works with the poor of America.

 

Yes, those people deserve the dignity of living under a bridge in the best possible health. :confused: Come on, it's a deeper, more complex issue than that.

[Cammie]

Yes, those people deserve the dignity of living under a bridge in the best possible health. :confused: Come on, it's a deeper, more complex issue than that.

 

 

I am not sure what your point is. Of course it is a deeper more complex issue than that. I don't think anyone said otherwise. I was responding to a person who stated that people in the US were not dying in the streets. I disagreed.

[mommyrooch]

Hmm.

 

I wonder how many people sitting in Hawaii in 1941 would have agreed with the unimportance of the nation's military.

 

Or the right to vote for women and blacks.

 

Or the Eisenhower interstate highway system allowing for the transport of food and goods from one end of the country to the other.

 

Yep. Not nearly as important as the amorphous "helping our fellow man".

 

If this nation really wants to "help our fellow man" in the form of "universal health care", let 2/3rds of the states sign on to it.

 

 

a

 

asta, you yourself bolded my words where I CLEARLY stated that these things were vitally important too. Re-read my post in case you missed that part.

 

No one said they weren't important which is what your post implies I said. I said I believe that it was even more important to help our fellow man.

 

Your words made a big leap towards addressing the unimportance of these services for which my words NEVER stated. In fact, I stated that they were "vitally important" just not "as important" as helping our fellow man.

 

No one is attampting to throw the baby out with the bath water here. :tongue_smilie:

Please don't put words in my mouth (or on the page) that I did not say or even imply. :D

[Lolly]

Okay, this is NOT a bait question.

 

We are homeschoolers. I'd love to hear what ALL viewpoints have to say on this topic that is ALL OVER the news, FB, blogs, boards, etc, etc.

 

Do you believe that the Constitution has been violated with this healthcare bill?

 

I guess I'd have to also ask if you have read/studied it, or not. (meaning the Constitution) Not because if you don't think it has been violated I will assume you haven't, but because I don't want to be assuming *anything* up front. :)

 

How much do you think it matters?

 

Does the end justify the means?

 

Please be nice and civil. :) Let me say up front that I don't align with anyone really. I have my own potpourri of views that can't be *plugged in*. I really do suspect that many others do as well and we are all sick of *party rhetoric*, so try to leave that at the door no matter *which* side you are on. Healthcare is an emotional topic for MOST. But especially for those with children with pressing issues. Let's acknowledge that up front too.

 

I really want to know what people think. :) I have no agenda, just :bigear:

 

I believe that it has been being violated heavily since the 1930's. All for the good of the country, of course. Unfortunately, it is probably time to put our foot down. hard.

[mommyrooch]

Unfortunately, there are. Dying in the streets, under the bridges, in tenaments and inner cities, in rural areas and urban. Ask anyone who works with the poor of America.

 

:iagree:

[mom4him]

I believe forcing everyone to pay for health care is unconstitutional. If you don't want auto insurance - you don't buy a vehicle. If you don't want homeowners insurance - you don't buy a home. This mandate requires you to pay just because you are alive and I believe that violates our Constitution. There are problems with our health insurance industry but that doesn't make it ok to intrude on our freedoms.

:iagree:

[OnTheBrink]

I am by no means an expert on the Constitution, but I have been trying to educate myself. When you read what the Founding Fathers believed about the proper role of government and you read the Constitution, it is a fairly easy document to understand.

When you listen to all the various "interpretations" that have been made of the Constitution over the years and the so-called "experts" of it, it becomes fuzzy. Meanings have become distorted in order to seem to be in favor of more federal power.

 

That being said, here is my take on it.

 

What is a right? William Blackstone wrote:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (Commentaries on the Laws of England)

Here are some of our rights:

The right of self-government

The right to bear arms for self-defense

The right to own, develop, and dispose of property

The right to make personal choices

The right of free conscience

The right to choose a profession

The right to choose a mate

The right to beget one's kind

The right to assemble

The right to petition

The right to free speech

The right to a free press

The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labors

The right to improve one's position through barter and sale

The right to contrive and invent

The right to privacy

The right to provide personal security

The right to of free association

and so on.

 

The right to affordable healthcare is not a natural right. Healthcare is a service; a good; a product. (So is education).

 

What is the purpose of Government? The purpose of Government is the protection of our unalienable rights, as stated in the Declaration. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

 

To protect our rights, taxes are needed. Read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution (it's online). "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.. to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" Some of these is to maintain a military, establish post offices and post roads, etc.

 

The purpose of Government is not to grant rights. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. But when Government starts "granting rights", such as healthcare, our actual inherent and natural rights are encroached upon.

 

Our monetary property, through taxes, are taken from us, not for the purpose of providing for the common defense and welfare, but for the granting of a good or service to others. To provide a good or service would be fine if the tax was uniform (Article 1, section 8). But when you tax the haves and give to the have-nots, it becomes legalized plunder, not charity.

 

If someone were to steal our property, we would turn to the law for protection. When the law IS the one who steals, who do we then turn to? The government, whose purpose is to protect our rights, is now the one who is taking our rights.

Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (it's online).

 

This says nothing of the power the Government just assumed by passing this healthcare bill, which I believe is the main reason it was passed.

 

All right... bash away. :glare:

 

:hurray::hurray:

[Parrothead]

I am by no means an expert on the Constitution, but I have been trying to educate myself. When you read what the Founding Fathers believed about the proper role of government and you read the Constitution, it is a fairly easy document to understand.

When you listen to all the various "interpretations" that have been made of the Constitution over the years and the so-called "experts" of it, it becomes fuzzy. Meanings have become distorted in order to seem to be in favor of more federal power.

 

That being said, here is my take on it.

 

What is a right? William Blackstone wrote:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (Commentaries on the Laws of England)

Here are some of our rights:

The right of self-government

The right to bear arms for self-defense

The right to own, develop, and dispose of property

The right to make personal choices

The right of free conscience

The right to choose a profession

The right to choose a mate

The right to beget one's kind

The right to assemble

The right to petition

The right to free speech

The right to a free press

The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labors

The right to improve one's position through barter and sale

The right to contrive and invent

The right to privacy

The right to provide personal security

The right to of free association

and so on.

 

The right to affordable healthcare is not a natural right. Healthcare is a service; a good; a product. (So is education).

 

What is the purpose of Government? The purpose of Government is the protection of our unalienable rights, as stated in the Declaration. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

 

To protect our rights, taxes are needed. Read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution (it's online). "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.. to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" Some of these is to maintain a military, establish post offices and post roads, etc.

 

The purpose of Government is not to grant rights. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. But when Government starts "granting rights", such as healthcare, our actual inherent and natural rights are encroached upon.

 

Our monetary property, through taxes, are taken from us, not for the purpose of providing for the common defense and welfare, but for the granting of a good or service to others. To provide a good or service would be fine if the tax was uniform (Article 1, section 8). But when you tax the haves and give to the have-nots, it becomes legalized plunder, not charity.

 

If someone were to steal our property, we would turn to the law for protection. When the law IS the one who steals, who do we then turn to? The government, whose purpose is to protect our rights, is now the one who is taking our rights.

Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (it's online).

 

This says nothing of the power the Government just assumed by passing this healthcare bill, which I believe is the main reason it was passed.

 

All right... bash away. :glare:

:iagree:No bashing needed. You beautifully said what I feel.

[Hockey Mom]

Can anyone quote that part of the Constitution which they believe has been violated?

 

OR Can anyone quote that part of the Constitution which they believe has provided for the federal government to act in this manner?

 

Can anyone show me where the Constitution states the republic has the right to health care?

 

The U.S. isn't a third world country. There are not people dying on the streets. Having health insurance doesn't guarantee survival for people that are ill.

 

:iagree:

 

And that's not to say that even if we are all granted health care that those people will walk into a clinic for help either. You can lead a horse to water...

 

 

Ok, I live in a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY (and I don't know why you capitalize it all the time) and I have lived in Washington DC. I have actually walked past dead bodies (yes plural) of homeless people that died on the street of our nation's capitol. I have yet to have that experience in this THIRD WORLD COUNTRY. I don't think that is fear mongering. No more so than claiming that health care reform is akin to the US delving into socialism or that we have destroyed the US Constitution by taking this step.

 

Of course, if you don't believe that poverty is real and present in the US I certainly won't be able to convince you.

 

What do you call health care reform that forces its citizens to pay up or go to jail? Capitalism? Charity?

 

Again, where in the US Constitution does it say that citizens have the RIGHT to "free" healthcare?

 

WRT to the OP: yes, it is unconstitutional. Just as Social Security, Medicare, and parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional.

[Cammie]

It is interesting...try as I might, I can't come up with a better example of providing for the "general welfare" of the citizens of the US then making sure that health care is available and affordable to as many people as possible. Is there something else that fits the definition of "general welfare" better than healthcare?

[Hockey Mom]

I am by no means an expert on the Constitution, but I have been trying to educate myself. When you read what the Founding Fathers believed about the proper role of government and you read the Constitution, it is a fairly easy document to understand.

When you listen to all the various "interpretations" that have been made of the Constitution over the years and the so-called "experts" of it, it becomes fuzzy. Meanings have become distorted in order to seem to be in favor of more federal power.

 

That being said, here is my take on it.

 

What is a right? William Blackstone wrote:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (Commentaries on the Laws of England)

Here are some of our rights:

The right of self-government

The right to bear arms for self-defense

The right to own, develop, and dispose of property

The right to make personal choices

The right of free conscience

The right to choose a profession

The right to choose a mate

The right to beget one's kind

The right to assemble

The right to petition

The right to free speech

The right to a free press

The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labors

The right to improve one's position through barter and sale

The right to contrive and invent

The right to privacy

The right to provide personal security

The right to of free association

and so on.

 

The right to affordable healthcare is not a natural right. Healthcare is a service; a good; a product. (So is education).

 

What is the purpose of Government? The purpose of Government is the protection of our unalienable rights, as stated in the Declaration. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

 

To protect our rights, taxes are needed. Read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution (it's online). "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.. to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" Some of these is to maintain a military, establish post offices and post roads, etc.

 

The purpose of Government is not to grant rights. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. But when Government starts "granting rights", such as healthcare, our actual inherent and natural rights are encroached upon.

 

Our monetary property, through taxes, are taken from us, not for the purpose of providing for the common defense and welfare, but for the granting of a good or service to others. To provide a good or service would be fine if the tax was uniform (Article 1, section 8). But when you tax the haves and give to the have-nots, it becomes legalized plunder, not charity.

 

If someone were to steal our property, we would turn to the law for protection. When the law IS the one who steals, who do we then turn to? The government, whose purpose is to protect our rights, is now the one who is taking our rights.

Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (it's online).

 

This says nothing of the power the Government just assumed by passing this healthcare bill, which I believe is the main reason it was passed.

 

All right... bash away. :glare:

 

:iagree:

 

Excellent post!

[Cammie]

What do you call health care reform that forces its citizens to pay up or go to jail?

 

Really, jail, I must have missed that part. How exactly does that happen? I believe what everyone is upset about is the "get healthcare or pay a fine" proposition.

[LauraGB]

I am by no means an expert on the Constitution, but I have been trying to educate myself. When you read what the Founding Fathers believed about the proper role of government and you read the Constitution, it is a fairly easy document to understand.

When you listen to all the various "interpretations" that have been made of the Constitution over the years and the so-called "experts" of it, it becomes fuzzy. Meanings have become distorted in order to seem to be in favor of more federal power.

 

That being said, here is my take on it.

 

What is a right? William Blackstone wrote:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (Commentaries on the Laws of England)

Here are some of our rights:

The right of self-government

The right to bear arms for self-defense

The right to own, develop, and dispose of property

The right to make personal choices

The right of free conscience

The right to choose a profession

The right to choose a mate

The right to beget one's kind

The right to assemble

The right to petition

The right to free speech

The right to a free press

The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labors

The right to improve one's position through barter and sale

The right to contrive and invent

The right to privacy

The right to provide personal security

The right to of free association

and so on.

 

The right to affordable healthcare is not a natural right. Healthcare is a service; a good; a product. (So is education).

 

What is the purpose of Government? The purpose of Government is the protection of our unalienable rights, as stated in the Declaration. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

 

To protect our rights, taxes are needed. Read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution (it's online). "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.. to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" Some of these is to maintain a military, establish post offices and post roads, etc.

 

The purpose of Government is not to grant rights. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. But when Government starts "granting rights", such as healthcare, our actual inherent and natural rights are encroached upon.

 

Our monetary property, through taxes, are taken from us, not for the purpose of providing for the common defense and welfare, but for the granting of a good or service to others. To provide a good or service would be fine if the tax was uniform (Article 1, section 8). But when you tax the haves and give to the have-nots, it becomes legalized plunder, not charity.

 

If someone were to steal our property, we would turn to the law for protection. When the law IS the one who steals, who do we then turn to? The government, whose purpose is to protect our rights, is now the one who is taking our rights.

Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (it's online).

 

This says nothing of the power the Government just assumed by passing this healthcare bill, which I believe is the main reason it was passed.

 

All right... bash away. :glare:

 

Bash what? Great post!!

[Hockey Mom]

It is interesting...try as I might, I can't come up with a better example of providing for the "general welfare" of the citizens of the US then making sure that health care is available and affordable to as many people as possible. Is there something else that fits the definition of "general welfare" better than healthcare?

 

Given that there wasn't health care when the Founders wrote the Constitution, I'd say that it doesn't apply to "general welfare".

 

And as hmsmith pointed out,

The purpose of Government is not to grant rights. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. But when Government starts "granting rights", such as healthcare, our actual inherent and natural rights are encroached upon.

Healthcare doesn't qualify as an inherent right.

[Hockey Mom]

Really, jail, I must have missed that part. How exactly does that happen? I believe what everyone is upset about is the "get healthcare or pay a fine" proposition.

 

I believe I am not permitted to link here. However, you can google it.

 

The IRS is going to be the ones enforcing this bill. If you don't pay the fine for not purchasing health care, you go to jail.

[mommyrooch]

It is interesting...try as I might, I can't come up with a better example of providing for the "general welfare" of the citizens of the US then making sure that health care is available and affordable to as many people as possible. Is there something else that fits the definition of "general welfare" better than healthcare?

 

For the life of me I also can't think of anything that would pose a better example of "providing for the general welfare" than trying to make sure health care was affordable and obtainable to all.

 

It seems to me like it definitely fits the definition of "general welfare"

 

Like I said, Nope, it is not unconstitutional. :D

 

BTW Cammie, you are definitely providing a lot of food for thought for a lot of people. Kudos to you! :hurray:

[Gretchen in NJ]

Without getting too political, yes, I believe the health care bill and several other laws in the past 75 years violate the Constitution.

:iagree:

[Cammie]

Given that there wasn't health care when the Founders wrote the Constitution, I'd say that it doesn't apply to "general welfare".

 

QUOTE]

 

Clearly we have a fundamental disagreement as to how best to interpret the Constitution. Obviously, I am not an originalist or a textualist. I don't believe that it is appropriate to limit our interpretation of the Constitution to those ideas that were known to the drafters. That simply makes no sense to me given the unknown ways in which socieity and culture may move. They were brilliant men but they were not gods and they certainly were not omnipotent. If health care is an issue for our country now, why should we be limited in the ways we deal with the problem because there wasn't health care when the Constitution was drafted??

[Hockey Mom]

 

Clearly we have a fundamental disagreement as to how best to interpret the Constitution. Obviously, I am not an originalist or a textualist. I don't believe that it is appropriate to limit our interpretation of the Constitution to those ideas that were known to the drafters. That simply makes no sense to me given the unknown ways in which socieity and culture may move. They were brilliant men but they were not gods and they certainly were not omnipotent. If health care is an issue for our country now, why should we be limited in the ways we deal with the problem because there wasn't health care when the Constitution was drafted??

 

Because the Founders were for limited government.

[TravelingChris]

Yes, it is unconstitutional. It violates Amendment 10, at a minimum. According to people who have actually read the bills, there is also a constitutional problem with the way the bill was written and voted on. THe way bills are supposed to be written is done in one house, voted, sent to the other house, voted, and then signed by the President. THe two versions must be identical. Apparently this was not done.

 

I don't approve of this bill from either the constitutional point or the economic side. This bill is a disaster from an economic point particularly with regards towards the unemployed.

[Cammie]

I believe I am not permitted to link here. However, you can google it.

 

The IRS is going to be the ones enforcing this bill. If you don't pay the fine for not purchasing health care, you go to jail.

 

I did google it and all I got are Fox news sites, and a number of other sites stating that "Conservative media repeatedly fearmonger about possibility of jail time."

 

From what I read - if you don't pay the fine it becomes a tax and of course if you don't pay your taxes you are liable for civil and criminal penalties. All the standard tax issues apply (so no taxes if you have an income below a certain figure.) In 2008 approximately 100 people were criminally prosecuted for failure to pay their taxes. The vast majority of tax evaders are dealt with civilly. So I suppose, if you want to drag it out you could say - non payment of fine leads to jail time in the same way you could say that non payment of fine leads to turning purple. One might follow the other but the chances are highly unlikely.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Cammie
spelling!

[HollyinNNV]

Yes.

[mommyrooch]

Given that there wasn't health care when the Founders wrote the Constitution, I'd say that it doesn't apply to "general welfare".

 

What??? :confused: I really don't understand this argument.

 

Your argument is that since there wasn't health care when the founders wrote the Constitution then it doesn't apply to "general welfare? :confused:

 

Heck, that is akin to saying there were no tanks or planes or aircraft carries so these things wouldn't have applied either. How about the interstates, roads or bridges? Like I said. :confused:

 

Even though these things weren't here in the founders time doesn't make them any less warranted and needed in our time. It is understood thanks to common sense that these things apply and are justified under the constitution even though they "weren't here when the founders wrote the Constitution."

 

Our fore fathers could not have possibly predicted every scenario that would arise within this country. They were great men but they were not fortune tellers. Health care falling under "general welfare" is also very warranted. It doesn't matter that it "wasn't there when the founders wrote the constitution." It still falls under "providing for the general welfare".

[wapiti]

In addition to the Commerce clause argument, the issue over religious exemptions was just brought up on the other thread on the bill. I haven't looked closely at it, but I vaguely recall that there were discussions about the constitutionality of those provisions when the bill was passed by the Senate a few months ago.

 

There are some newspaper editorials on the constitutionality issues out there, at least a few, by law professors. I expect there to be more. They can be googled.

 

I will be surprised if this never reaches the Supreme Court, because there is no case law precisely on point under the Commerce clause, at least according to the discussions I was reading last night.

 

I was so bored in Constitutional Law in law school - I obviously learned none of it (the professor, a brilliant man, happened to be very dull). Now more than fifteen years later, I find it fascinating. It's going to be interesting watching this play out. I wish I had time to actually read the case law. Instead at this moment I'm referee-ing an argument about the sharing of Cheezits....(why are they even in my house)

[usetoschool]

yes. I believe the Constitution has not only been violates, it has been trampled and our forfathers (on both sides of the aisle) would be rolling in their graves. This whole mess looks to me like the culmination of 3 generations of the Modern Schooling System. There...I said it.

 

~~Faithe

 

:iagree:

 

and this is the dead horse I just keep beating but I do not have the right to make my neighbor pay my bills, therefore I can't delegate that right to the government (who I hire and who work for me at my request). Fair or ethical has absolutely nothing to do with it. That is a matter for charity and local community organizations to work out in their own individual neighborhoods.

Edited March 23, 2010 by jcooperetc

[Hockey Mom]

I did google it and all I got are Fox news sites, and a number of other sites stating that "Conservative media repeatedly fearmonger about possibility of jail time."

 

From what I read - if you don't pay the fine it becomes a tax and of course if you don't pay your taxes you are liable for civil and criminal penalties. All the standard tax issues apply (so no taxes if you have an income below a certain figure.) In 2008 approximately 100 people were criminally prosecuted for failure to pay their taxes. The vast majority of tax evaders are dealt with civilly. So I suppose, if you want to drag it out you could say - non payment of fine leads to jail time in the same way you could say that non payment of fine leads to turning purple. One might follow the other but the chances are highly unlikely.

 

Not really. Jail is a viable punishment for choosing NOT to buy health insurance.

 

We all have our personal anecdotes that can prove our POV, and I know of several I could share where going to jail for not paying the fine/tax is a very real possibility. But it won't change anyone's mind.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree that this 'reform' is unconstitutional, and let the courts sort it all out. Or the voters in November. ;)

[Cammie]

Instead at this moment I'm referee-ing an argument about the sharing of Cheezits....(why are they even in my house)

 

No better preparation for motherhood than law school...ask me how I know! :lol:

[Gretchen in NJ]

Everyone seems to be talking about the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution. What about the taking of ones property under the IV Amendment?

[Cammie]

I believe the takings clause has been limited in application to the taking of real property. It was also expanded to cover the regulation of the use of real property. I don't believe it has ever been used to address the "taking" of other forms of property - like income.

 

I would be interested to learn otherwise.

 

:bigear:

[elegantlion]

So if I don't pay for the government health insurance I'll be penalized on my taxes, which if I don't pay I could go to jail....where I will be supported by tax dollars. :tongue_smilie:

[Joker]

I just read that 13 states filed suit after Obama signed the bill. I know most see this as a symbolic gesture only, but what about the states that are talking about amending their state constitutions? Florida is one that has said they will be adding it to the November ballot. Would it actually do anything? Just curious. Thanks!

[Catherine]

You can choose not to drive. You cannot choose not to be sick. Currently, people who are healthy must decide whether to spend money, a lot of it, for insurance that they often do not perceive they need. Costs for their care are 100% shifted to taxpayers. At least forcing people to pay into the pool partly addresses that problem.

 

It's simply not true that even careful and responsible people will correctly anticipate costs. My friends, definitely middle-class small business owners, self-insured several years ago. They saved double the average amount needed for an uncomplicated, hospital birth. The mom ended up with severe pre-eclampsia, the baby was surgically delivered at 28 weeks, and spent 10 weeks in the hospital, some of that in the NICU. In the end, they managed to strike a bargain with the hospital and pay off about 40% of what they actually owed, over many years, to avoid losing their business and home. If everyone did that, hospitals could not survive financially.

[usetoschool]

I am by no means an expert on the Constitution, but I have been trying to educate myself. When you read what the Founding Fathers believed about the proper role of government and you read the Constitution, it is a fairly easy document to understand.

When you listen to all the various "interpretations" that have been made of the Constitution over the years and the so-called "experts" of it, it becomes fuzzy. Meanings have become distorted in order to seem to be in favor of more federal power.

 

That being said, here is my take on it.

 

What is a right? William Blackstone wrote:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (Commentaries on the Laws of England)

Here are some of our rights:

The right of self-government

The right to bear arms for self-defense

The right to own, develop, and dispose of property

The right to make personal choices

The right of free conscience

The right to choose a profession

The right to choose a mate

The right to beget one's kind

The right to assemble

The right to petition

The right to free speech

The right to a free press

The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labors

The right to improve one's position through barter and sale

The right to contrive and invent

The right to privacy

The right to provide personal security

The right to of free association

and so on.

 

The right to affordable healthcare is not a natural right. Healthcare is a service; a good; a product. (So is education).

 

What is the purpose of Government? The purpose of Government is the protection of our unalienable rights, as stated in the Declaration. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

 

To protect our rights, taxes are needed. Read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution (it's online). "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.. to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" Some of these is to maintain a military, establish post offices and post roads, etc.

 

The purpose of Government is not to grant rights. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. But when Government starts "granting rights", such as healthcare, our actual inherent and natural rights are encroached upon.

 

Our monetary property, through taxes, are taken from us, not for the purpose of providing for the common defense and welfare, but for the granting of a good or service to others. To provide a good or service would be fine if the tax was uniform (Article 1, section 8). But when you tax the haves and give to the have-nots, it becomes legalized plunder, not charity.

 

If someone were to steal our property, we would turn to the law for protection. When the law IS the one who steals, who do we then turn to? The government, whose purpose is to protect our rights, is now the one who is taking our rights.

Read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (it's online).

 

This says nothing of the power the Government just assumed by passing this healthcare bill, which I believe is the main reason it was passed.

 

All right... bash away. :glare:

 

No bashing. Good job. Thanks for the quick civics lesson!

[wapiti]

No better preparation for motherhood than law school...ask me how I know! :lol:

And then what do you do when your child can out-argue you :glare:. My dd has a sort of LD with language processing - she has trouble with inferences, etc. - but arguing literally she's right every time. Drives me nuts! (guess that should be expected from the child of two lawyers? but there are six of them - can they amend our family constitution to over-rule us :lol:?) Seriously though, I am here because I need the mental stimulation for my sanity. Would that I could take the day off from being mom to analyze the question at hand, but the baby is waking up...

 

ETA: Cammie, I wish I could find what I was reading last night (lots of colorful language, sounded like a drunken bar review discussion), but if you were interested enough to look them up, two of the cases being discussed were Wickard (farmer/wheat case) and a more recent case that I think was called Raich (sp?) in which Alito wrote a concurrence. I'm going to try to find this discussion later because one particuar person's argument made a whole lot of sense to me. Some of them appeared to know what they were talking about (unlike myself :lol:).

Edited March 23, 2010 by wapiti

[asta]

Has anyone here seen the movie Groundhog Day with Bill Murray?

 

You know the part where he finds the old guy in the alley?

 

He spends all of that time, reliving the same day, over and over - eventually he is a doctor. Every day, he tries to save that old guy. He feeds him soup. He brings him out of the cold. He gives him medical care. But in the end? He still dies. When he questions it, a nurse replies "sometimes people just die".

 

 

a

[EmilyK]

I believe the takings clause has been limited in application to the taking of real property. It was also expanded to cover the regulation of the use of real property. I don't believe it has ever been used to address the "taking" of other forms of property - like income.

 

I would be interested to learn otherwise.

 

:bigear:

 

 

I agree.

[mommyrooch]

Has anyone here seen the movie Groundhog Day with Bill Murray?

 

You know the part where he finds the old guy in the alley?

 

He spends all of that time, reliving the same day, over and over - eventually he is a doctor. Every day, he tries to save that old guy. He feeds him soup. He brings him out of the cold. He gives him medical care. But in the end? He still dies. When he questions it, a nurse replies "sometimes people just die".

 

 

a

 

Yes, but in this movie the old man had been on the streets for quite some time and had gone who knows how long without medical care, food, shelter, etc. Had someone gotten to him sooner or he could have had access to these things sooner then the outcome might have indeed been quite different. ;)

[asta]

Yes, but in this movie the old man had been on the streets for quite some time and had gone who knows how long without medical care, food, shelter, etc. Had someone gotten to him sooner or he could have had access to these things sooner then the outcome might have indeed been quite different. ;)

 

He could have had access.

 

But would he have accessed it?

 

 

a