Healthcare debate: "to provide for the general welfare"

[Fenixgoon]

The recent ruling of part of the healthcare bill being unconstitutional led me back to reading the Constitution itself, as many people cite the clause in my title

"to provide for the general welfare...."​

as the reason why the healthcare bill is constitutional. but i realized something while i was reading over the Constitution... congress is not providing healthcare (in a strict sense), but rather obligating you to purchase a 3rd party product (health insurance from an insurer). Therefore it stands to me that a judge ruling the legislation unconstitutional is not all that unreasonable (even though others have validated it).

although another thing crossed my mind - why can a judge rule only part of an act unconstitutional, but a president's veto must be all or nothing (no line item veto)?

what do you guys think?

 

[Craig234]

although another thing crossed my mind - why can a judge rule only part of an act unconstitutional, but a president's veto must be all or nothing (no line item veto)?

what do you guys think?

Because it's two different things to strike something down as unconstitutional, and to strike it down as a political act.

If a bill has ten things and one is unconstitutional, the other nine are still things that passed into law in our system, why should a judge strike them down?

But our system gives Congress the right to create something like a spending bill filled with thousands of items, with its process of tradeoffs to get it passed, Democrats cutting this budget in exchange for Republicans cutting another; letting the President have a 'line item veto' would destroy that process, giving a dominant edge to one party but more importantly, letting the President have Congress' power, when the constitution only lets him veto or not veto entire bills.

Creating spending bills is a separation of powers issue, with that power clearly given to Congress.

We've already encroached it more than enough with the President submitting a very influential draft budget to Congress.

 

[ProfJohn]

One thing many people forget is that the term "provide for the general welfare" had a completely different meaning in 1776 than it does today.

To the founders the phrase meant to provide for the general well-being of the country. It had nothing at all to do with providing welfare as we know it, welfare as we know it didn't even exist at the time.

Also, many of the founding fathers are on record objecting to the use of one persons money to give to another person.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Thomas Jefferson

 

[shira]

Why is it that an approach (the health care mandate) first suggested by the Heritage Foundation in 1992 and strongly favored by the Republican party as part of their proposed alternative to Clinton's health care proposal back then is now vilified by these same conservatives as gross government overreaching and patently unconstitutional?

Couldn't possibly be politics as usual, could it?

 

[sportage]

Hmmmm do it? Repost my post in another thread here?
Hmmmmm U bet-cha...

WAht? Healthcare FOR profit actually killing people.... FOR profit?
Take a look at the new Wellmark mega building going up (blue cross blue shield).

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...2160350&Ref=AR

(if that link is maxed out.. try here)
http://www.kcci.com/video/25406677/detail.html

Then imagine the dead it took to build this glass and steel puppy.
Welcome to "the people against their own best interest" America!!!

 

[sandorski]

One thing many people forget is that the term "provide for the general welfare" had a completely different meaning in 1776 than it does today.

To the founders the phrase meant to provide for the general well-being of the country. It had nothing at all to do with providing welfare as we know it, welfare as we know it didn't even exist at the time.

Also, many of the founding fathers are on record objecting to the use of one persons money to give to another person.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Thomas Jefferson

Yes, correct. "Welfare", the program, accomplishes this. Perhaps they should have called it something else, to avoid the silly argument you just made about it.

 

[NoWhereM]

Because it's two different things to strike something down as unconstitutional, and to strike it down as a political act.

If a bill has ten things and one is unconstitutional, the other nine are still things that passed into law in our system, why should a judge strike them down?

But our system gives Congress the right to create something like a spending bill filled with thousands of items, with its process of tradeoffs to get it passed, Democrats cutting this budget in exchange for Republicans cutting another; letting the President have a 'line item veto' would destroy that process, giving a dominant edge to one party but more importantly, letting the President have Congress' power, when the constitution only lets him veto or not veto entire bills.

Creating spending bills is a separation of powers issue, with that power clearly given to Congress.

We've already encroached it more than enough with the President submitting a very influential draft budget to Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability

Severability clauses are also commonly found in legislation, where they state that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law.

 

[drebo]

Yes, correct. "Welfare", the program, accomplishes this. Perhaps they should have called it something else, to avoid the silly argument you just made about it.

Whether or not "social welfare" is a net positive to the country as a whole is very much in doubt and no where near a given.

Look at the school thread if you need further evidence.

 

[soccerballtux]

bread and circuses are for general welfare.

 

[Patranus]

If a bill has ten things and one is unconstitutional, the other nine are still things that passed into law in our system, why should a judge strike them down?

Thats like saying that paying into social security is unconstitutional but we will keep in place social security payments.

@NoWhereM

Obamacare doesn't have a severability clause built into it.
If a judge strikes down part of it, all of it is gone.

 

[Zorkorist]

Yes, correct. "Welfare", the program, accomplishes this. Perhaps they should have called it something else, to avoid the silly argument you just made about it.

LOL, Sandorski...

Try harder to rewrite the constitution.

The general welfare of the country, means EXACTLY THAT.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

To the OP... "General Welfare" and "Interstate Commerce" are two clauses that Government uses to expand it's powers. Never mind the explicitly stated bill of rights.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Tenth Amendment -

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.

-John

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yes, correct. "Welfare", the program, accomplishes this. Perhaps they should have called it something else, to avoid the silly argument you just made about it.

it accomplishes this, but congress isn't *providing* for it.

medicare is federally run, hence congress provides for it. this law just makes you buy some product from a company. congress does not provide anything.


and yes zork, i am well aware those have been used to massively expand the feds hands. though i'm against the current healthcare legislation (it has some very good ideas and good intentions, but does nothing to solve many problems that currently exist), i actually wanted people's opinions on what the intepretation of "provide for general welfare" meant in light of the healthcare law.

 

[matt0611]

I always agreed with James Madison, the father of the constitution about the general welfare clause:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

It makes no sense to me for the federal government to do anything "so long as it promotes the general welfare", it completely negates the point of the constitution and is a gross misrepresentation IMO.

 

[CycloWizard]

I always agreed with James Madison, the father of the constitution about the general welfare clause:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

It makes no sense to me for the federal government to do anything "so long as it promotes the general welfare", it completely negates the point of the constitution and is a gross misrepresentation IMO.

Well said. The problem is that both parties are more apt to use the Constitution as toilet paper than a rulebook when in power.

 

[ElFenix]

The recent ruling of part of the healthcare bill being unconstitutional led me back to reading the Constitution itself, as many people cite the clause in my title

"to provide for the general welfare...."​

as the reason why the healthcare bill is constitutional. but i realized something while i was reading over the Constitution... congress is not providing healthcare (in a strict sense), but rather obligating you to purchase a 3rd party product (health insurance from an insurer). Therefore it stands to me that a judge ruling the legislation unconstitutional is not all that unreasonable (even though others have validated it).

although another thing crossed my mind - why can a judge rule only part of an act unconstitutional, but a president's veto must be all or nothing (no line item veto)?

what do you guys think?

the general welfare clause has nothing to do with it because the general welfare clause is part of the taxing power, and congress went out of its way to state over and over again that it was not a tax. they even changed the bill itself for just that provision from 'tax' to 'penalty.' so, the only reasonable conclusion is that congress intended for the provision to NOT be a tax, and therefore the power can't come from the general welfare clause.

 

[Jaskalas]

"to provide for the general welfare...."

Clearly the founders meant to enact communism 'to provide for the general welfare'. That's what it's for isn't it? You redistribute wealth to provide for the welfare of others. You enact a redistribution machine so vast and encompassing that it consumes the free market and becomes a market geared towards proving the general welfare.

We were all to be made dependents on the founder's welfare machine, screw personal liberty and independence. Just as the founders intended.

That, or our local communists in P&N are making shit up using 'to provide for the general welfare' as a trump card to destroy the rest of the constitution along with the bill of rights. To mark this single phase as both beginning and end of our legal documents. After all, who wouldn't want unbridled power?

Want to invade a country like Iraq? It's for the general welfare of our people to kill other people. Presto! Free war powers. Etc.

The argument that our government is nothing aside from proving welfare is an affront to the very soul of this country. It is a treacherous attack, a grab for absolute power against a constitution of limiting and enumerated powers. It is the communist way.

If you think that's who the forefathers were, you are NOT an American.

 

[sandorski]

LOL, Sandorski...

Try harder to rewrite the constitution.

The general welfare of the country, means EXACTLY THAT.

-John

Are we in disagreement? :\

 

[NoWhereM]

Thats like saying that paying into social security is unconstitutional but we will keep in place social security payments.

@NoWhereM

Obamacare doesn't have a severability clause built into it.
If a judge strikes down part of it, all of it is gone.

You've got to be kidding. Nobody could be that incompetent to write a bill that large and not include something that basic.

 

[Anarchist420]

Hamilton wrote the Articles, and for him, there were a lot of implied powers for the Federal government to him, so maybe it is Constitutional. After all, they took the general welfare clause out of the CSA Constitution.

 

[Fenixgoon]

the general welfare clause has nothing to do with it because the general welfare clause is part of the taxing power, and congress went out of its way to state over and over again that it was not a tax. they even changed the bill itself for just that provision from 'tax' to 'penalty.' so, the only reasonable conclusion is that congress intended for the provision to NOT be a tax, and therefore the power can't come from the general welfare clause.

i dont even know what you're addressing, and nowhere did i mention taxes.

 

[theeedude]

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. If it says "general welfare," that is what it means. If they founders wanted to enumerate and define it, they would have done so instead of using the term "general."

 

[Patranus]

The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. If it says "general welfare," that is what it means. If they founders wanted to enumerate and define it, they would have done so instead of using the term "general."

Additionally if the Constitution was intended to be "living" as "progressives" suggest it would not have a built in mechanism to change it, the amendment process.

 

[theeedude]

Additionally if the Constitution was intended to be "living" as "progressives" suggest it would not have a built in mechanism to change it, the amendment process.

And it would not have been general enough to let the people through their elected representatives do plenty while still saying within the letter of the constitution. General welfare is there for a reason.