Healthcare debate: "to provide for the general welfare"

[werepossum]

You still have power to control the federal government. It's called elections. The General welfare clause is there because the Founders wanted you to have that power, instead of cramming some enumerated list down your throat.

Under your "reading" of the Constitution we have elections only because Congress hasn't yet decided that not having elections will "promote the general welfare".

 

[matt0611]

Everything in the Constitution has been either put in there by the Founders or amended and ratified by the States, as the Founders intended. If politicians don't have incentive to constrain the growth of the federal government it's because the voters don't give them one. If voters only voted for people who keep the federal government small, it would be small. If Americans decide they want small government, they don't need the Constitution to force it to happen, they can do it themselves at the polls. But they don't really want it, they just like talking about it.

See I really think its the opposite of what you seem to believe. The founders wanted constraints put on the federal government in the constitution, if those powers are not enough, we can always add more powers by way of amendments to the constitution if they are truly needed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

lol @ seasnap and the other liberal loons. Hopefully someday you'll wake up and realize that your blessed gov't is even worse than those evil corporations you love to hate. Until then, carry on with the comedic relief!

 

[theeedude]

See I really think its the opposite of what you seem to believe. The founders wanted constraints put on the federal government in the constitution, if those powers are not enough, we can always add more powers by way of amendments to the constitution if they are truly needed.

That's not what the Constitution says. It enumerates the constraints, and gives the government broad power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. But you are free to think what you want.
As far as for the rest of the rightwing whackos in this thread, it's too bad you don't like what the Constitution actually says, you can attack me all you want, it's not going to change the text of the Constitution or the English language. If you think the Constitution should say the rightwing tripe you believe in, you'll just have to go through the amendment process to accomplish that, not rewriting the definition of the word "general."

 

[xj0hnx]

As far as for the rest of the rightwing whackos in this thread, it's too bad you don't like what the Constitution actually says, you can attack me all you want, it's not going to change the text of the Constitution or the English language.

Attack you, no, laugh at you, yes.

 

[werepossum]

That's not what the Constitution says. It enumerates the constraints, and gives the government broad power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. But you are free to think what you want.
As far as for the rest of the rightwing whackos in this thread, it's too bad you don't like what the Constitution actually says, you can attack me all you want, it's not going to change the text of the Constitution or the English language. If you think the Constitution should say the rightwing tripe you believe in, you'll just have to go through the amendment process to accomplish that, not rewriting the definition of the word "general."

The problem is that in typical liberal fashion you have seized on the one phrase you like and proclaimed that the rest of the document is moot. No one else is arguing that Congress has the right to collect taxes, merely your assumption that the right to collect taxes to "provide for the general welfare" also empowers Congress to do literally anything it desires in the pursuit of this.

 

[theeedude]

The problem is that in typical liberal fashion you have seized on the one phrase you like and proclaimed that the rest of the document is moot. No one else is arguing that Congress has the right to collect taxes, merely your assumption that the right to collect taxes to "provide for the general welfare" also empowers Congress to do literally anything it desires in the pursuit of this.

Literally anything not forbidden to it in the Constitution. It can't violate people's rights to do so, but providing for the general welfare is a broad mandate, as is common defense.

 

[theeedude]

BTW, the argument that opponents of individual mandate are making in court is not that the government can not tax to provide for the general welfare, like health coverage, that is already settled, as you can see with Medicare.
Their argument is that the government can not penalize you for failing to obtain private health insurance for yourself, and that such penalty is not a tax covered by the general welfare clause.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Literally anything not forbidden to it in the Constitution. It can't violate people's rights to do so, but providing for the general welfare is a broad mandate, as is common defense.

Uh no. The Constitution sets forth what is acceptable for the Fed gov't and leaves all the rest to the states. So you're exactly 180 deg out of phase with reality, which is typical for leftists such as yourself so don't feel bad - just wake up. 🙂

 

[CADsortaGUY]

BTW, the argument that opponents of individual mandate are making in court is not that the government can not tax to provide for the general welfare, like health coverage, that is already settled, as you can see with Medicare.
Their argument is that the government can not penalize you for failing to obtain private health insurance for yourself, and that such penalty is not a tax covered by the general welfare clause.

Uh, the problem is that the Fed gov't can not force citizens to buy a product/service. Call it a tax or a penalty - doesn't matter - there is no Constitutional authority for them to do what they did.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

That's not in the Constitution. Madison and Jefferson letters are not governing documents of this country, the Constitution is. Sorry we aren't going to change the English language to redefine the term "general" to mean "specific," just because you don't like the general welfare clause. If you want to change the Constitution, there is an amendment process at your disposal.

Every publication by the Founding Fathers, and everything they are quoted as saying is relevant. They wrote the constitution; everything they said or wrote about it clarified the document's purpose and scope. If you're going to hold a document dear but ignore the people who wrote it, what's the point of the document?

It sounds more like you want to use the constitution to further your own agendas and ideas of what the United States should be, rather than follow the document and maintain the country in its original image.

 

[theeedude]

Every publication by the Founding Fathers, and everything they are quoted as saying is relevant. They wrote the constitution; everything they said or wrote about it clarified the document's purpose and scope. If you're going to hold a document dear but ignore the people who wrote it, what's the point of the document?

Then you have to include Hamilton's writings as well, and he's pretty clear about the breadth of the general welfare clause.

It sounds more like you want to use the constitution to further your own agendas and ideas of what the United States should be, rather than follow the document and maintain the country in its original image.

Hell yes I want to further my agenda within the letter of the Constitution.

Maintaining the country in original image is not the mandate of the Constitution, no matter what you imagine in your head. Original image of the US was a slave owning society. Why don't you heed your own advice and follow the document as it's written in plain English?

 

[piasabird]

The people also have the right to revolt.

 

[theeedude]

Uh, the problem is that the Fed gov't can not force citizens to buy a product/service. Call it a tax or a penalty - doesn't matter - there is no Constitutional authority for them to do what they did.

That's where you are wrong. Congress has EXPLICIT authority to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. The only question is whether this is a tax or a penalty.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That's where you are wrong. Congress has EXPLICIT authority to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. The only question is whether this is a tax or a penalty.

That has nothing to do with what I posted and I've not argued against the ability to tax. The mandate is about forcing a purchase - which there is no Constitutional authority for them to do. If there is - please post it. "general welfare" does not give such authority.

 

[theeedude]

That has nothing to do with what I posted and I've not argued against the ability to tax. The mandate is about forcing a purchase - which there is no Constitutional authority for them to do. If there is - please post it. "general welfare" does not give such authority.

Universal health coverage falls under "general welfare" like Medicare.
The question for the Courts is whether accessing the individual mandate penalty falls under the "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." to provide for it.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Then you have to include Hamilton's writings as well, and he's pretty clear about the breadth of the general welfare clause.
Hell yes I want to further my agenda within the letter of the Constitution.

Maintaining the country in original image is not the mandate of the Constitution, no matter what you imagine in your head. Original image of the US was a slave owning society. Why don't you heed your own advice and follow the document as it's written in plain English?

Owning slaves wasn't part of the constitution; that was a social/economic result of the times. My point is that the constitution was written specifically to keep the government from becoming an enormous behemoth, ie what it is today. It's not supposed to be a huge bureaucracy providing benefits with millions of exemptions to millions of people, while taxing them with millions of exemptions. The states are meant to enact laws as huge as a health-care bill, while the federal government is simply supposed to keep the states together and defend the nation as a whole.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Universal health coverage falls under "general welfare" like Medicare.
The question for the Courts is whether accessing the individual mandate penalty falls under the "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." to provide for it.

Nope. The issue is about the Feds having the power to force citizens to buy something. There is no such authority. UHC is different than obamacare. Both are disastrous options - lets hope the court upholds the Constitution and rejects the idea that the Feds can force citizens to buy something.

 

[theeedude]

Owning slaves wasn't part of the constitution; that was a social/economic result of the times. My point is that the constitution was written specifically to keep the government from becoming an enormous behemoth, ie what it is today. It's not supposed to be a huge bureaucracy providing benefits with millions of exemptions to millions of people, while taxing them with millions of exemptions. The states are meant to enact laws as huge as a health-care bill, while the federal government is simply supposed to keep the states together and defend the nation as a whole.

That is your personal opinion.
The governing document is the actual text of the Constitution which gives Congress broad power to collect taxes to provide for general welfare.

 

[theeedude]

Nope. The issue is about the Feds having the power to force citizens to buy something. There is no such authority. UHC is different than obamacare. Both are disastrous options - lets hope the court upholds the Constitution and rejects the idea that the Feds can force citizens to buy something.

You are confused about what universal health coverage means. It just means everyone has some sort of coverage, not necessarily from the government. There are countries like Switzerland that have universal coverage that is fully private, with individual mandate. I would not weep too many tears for individual mandate if it's taken off the table. I think the government should live up to the letter of the Constitution and collect taxes to provide for general welfare, health care being part of it, instead of mandating that people provide it for themselves. That's too Swiss for me.

 

[Patranus]

General Welfare as in the welfare of the United States not citizens of the United States.

They are two separate things.

Just like the Senate represents the interests of the states as an entity not the people of the states.

The federal government was never intended to get into these things, and if some form of government was going to, it would have been on a state level.

I hope everyone realizes this all changed under FDR after his court packing scheme when he bullied the Supreme Court into throwing out 200 years of case law.

The federal government was never intended to invade every day life. It was never intended to pick winners and losers. It was never intended to be "pro worker" or "pro business". The damage that FDR did to the constitution hurts people on both ends of the political spectrum.

 

[Jaskalas]

lol @ seasnap and the other liberal loons. Hopefully someday you'll wake up and realize that your blessed gov't is even worse than those evil corporations you love to hate. Until then, carry on with the comedic relief!

The one absolutely fatal flaw in their communist utopia is that the government is supposed to protect us. Government is the watch dog against evil corporations. It's supposed to police them, not replace and BECOME them.

The worst evil corporation is that one that makes its own laws.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You are confused about what universal health coverage means. It just means everyone has some sort of coverage, not necessarily from the government. There are countries like Switzerland that have universal coverage that is fully private, with individual mandate. I would not weep too many tears for individual mandate if it's taken off the table. I think the government should live up to the letter of the Constitution and collect taxes to provide for general welfare, health care being part of it, instead of mandating that people provide it for themselves. That's too Swiss for me.

UHC - Universal Health Care

Obamacare in the passed format is not UHC. What the swiss have is of no consequence to us, nor what any other country has. They can do what they please, and we must follow the Constitution. The Constitution does NOT allow for the gov't to do what it's doing today, let alone become a health care (or INSURANCE) provider for individuals. The Constitution was meant to be a cage for the Federal gov't to limit it's intrusion into people's lives - yet you libs want it to be more and more involved. Wake the hell up - the Fed is not your mommy. F'n little spoiled brats...

 

[theeedude]

UHC - Universal Health Care

Obamacare in the passed format is not UHC. What the swiss have is of no consequence to us, nor what any other country has. They can do what they please, and we must follow the Constitution. The Constitution does NOT allow for the gov't to do what it's doing today, let alone become a health care (or INSURANCE) provider for individuals. The Constitution was meant to be a cage for the Federal gov't to limit it's intrusion into people's lives - yet you libs want it to be more and more involved. Wake the hell up - the Fed is not your mommy. F'n little spoiled brats...

I said universal health coverage, not UHC.
You are entitled to your opinion, just don't confuse it with what the Constitution actually says.

 

[HumblePie]

Meh, I suggest we all get rid of mandatory schooling. Since schools are not welfare as the original fathers intended.