Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[toomuchtime_]

I have nothing but respect for the founding fathers they were nothing less then geniuses, however, no one can account for everything. They provided freedom of speech, but never set limits! Do you really thing the founding fathers intended to allow people to yell fire in a crowded building causing panic and ultimately dead people. They allowed for free press, but again with no limits, do you think they allowed from careless and knowingly false defamation?

Hell, acknowledged right there in Marbury v. Madison it was basically admitted that the founding fathers neglected to give the Federal Courts powers to hear federal questions. The founding fathers were smart, but no one can create something to incorporate everything. Not to mention that at the birth of the nation, the union was very very fragile and politics still played a part - just see the allowing of slavery!

That is exactly my point, the founding fathers never intended to solve all our issues/problems in the Constitution, so when the SCOTUS pretends to see rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution in the mysterious "penumbra" they are acting in contempt of the spirit and intention of the founding fathers who clearly intended to leave those matters not explicitly decided in the Constitution to the Congress, the states or the amendment process, not to nine political appointees to divine from the entrails of the Constitution.

Our rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to exist, the 9th Amendment makes that clear.

The issue I was addressing is whether the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS is restricted to matters explicitly stated in the Constitution or other federal laws and treaties, or if they can freely rule on matters not explicitly stated, such as privacy. The 9th amendment states that the Constitution does not deny those rights not explicitly protected by it, but it does not say Congress or the states lack the authority to limit or deny those rights not explicitly protected by the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is exactly my point, the founding fathers never intended to solve all our issues/problems in the Constitution, so when the SCOTUS pretends to see rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution in the mysterious "penumbra" they are acting in contempt of the spirit and intention of the founding fathers who clearly intended to leave those matters not explicitly decided in the Constitution to the Congress, the states or the amendment process, not to nine political appointees to divine from the entrails of the Constitution.

Our rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to exist, the 9th Amendment makes that clear.

The issue I was addressing is whether the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS is restricted to matters explicitly stated in the Constitution or other federal laws and treaties, or if they can freely rule on matters not explicitly stated, such as privacy. The 9th amendment states that the Constitution does not deny those rights not explicitly protected by it, but it does not say Congress or the states lack the authority to limit or deny those rights not explicitly protected by the Constitution.

The federal Congress certainly could not have restricted any rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but once upon a time the states, theoretically, could have. The U.S. Constitution did not limit the states, other than those restrictions in Article 1, Section 10, up until people began saying that the 14th Amendment made it so that the Constitution does apply to the states.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

LAws must pass constitutional muster..

sorry

Then we're in agreement. The problem is that the federal government just ignores the Constitution, and getting into the healthcare business is certainly unconstitutional.

You state that it is. I think it is not. So, after the beginning of a real Health Care package is passed, we shall see where the Supreme Court stands. I bet that it never even goes to teh Supreme Court.

watch what you say. rationality has no place with people like K. he reminds me of the dolts who are challenging the legality of the existence of the Federal Reserve Bank and Obama's 'natural' birth.

 

[GHook93]

Then we're in agreement. The problem is that the federal government just ignores the Constitution, and getting into the healthcare business is certainly unconstitutional.

You state that it is. I think it is not. So, after the beginning of a real Health Care package is passed, we shall see where the Supreme Court stands. I bet that it never even goes to teh Supreme Court.

Can you find for me the passage in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to enact universal healthcare? Keep in mind that the Constitution explicitly states the powers of the federal government.

Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?

 

[GHook93]

I have nothing but respect for the founding fathers they were nothing less then geniuses, however, no one can account for everything. They provided freedom of speech, but never set limits! Do you really thing the founding fathers intended to allow people to yell fire in a crowded building causing panic and ultimately dead people. They allowed for free press, but again with no limits, do you think they allowed from careless and knowingly false defamation?

Hell, acknowledged right there in Marbury v. Madison it was basically admitted that the founding fathers neglected to give the Federal Courts powers to hear federal questions. The founding fathers were smart, but no one can create something to incorporate everything. Not to mention that at the birth of the nation, the union was very very fragile and politics still played a part - just see the allowing of slavery!

That is exactly my point, the founding fathers never intended to solve all our issues/problems in the Constitution, so when the SCOTUS pretends to see rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution in the mysterious "penumbra" they are acting in contempt of the spirit and intention of the founding fathers who clearly intended to leave those matters not explicitly decided in the Constitution to the Congress, the states or the amendment process, not to nine political appointees to divine from the entrails of the Constitution.

Our rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to exist, the 9th Amendment makes that clear.

Explain better what you mean, since you proclaim yourself as a constitutional scholar!

 

[Oddball]

Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

 

[Bern80]

Maybe someone can tell me what I'm missing.

The 10th ammendment says the powers not delegated and enumerated to the fed are left to the states.

The powers that ARE delegated to the Fed are in Article 1; Section 8. Provide health care aint there.
Seems fairly cut and dried.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is exactly my point, the founding fathers never intended to solve all our issues/problems in the Constitution, so when the SCOTUS pretends to see rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution in the mysterious "penumbra" they are acting in contempt of the spirit and intention of the founding fathers who clearly intended to leave those matters not explicitly decided in the Constitution to the Congress, the states or the amendment process, not to nine political appointees to divine from the entrails of the Constitution.

Our rights don't have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to exist, the 9th Amendment makes that clear.

Explain better what you mean, since you proclaim yourself as a constitutional scholar!

Well it's funny how that charge keeps getting laid at my feet considering I have never said that I am a constitutional scholar nor consider myself as such. I have read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and many other writings of the founding fathers and have come to form my opinion based on those readings.

Now as it pertains to my actual statement, the Constitution must explicitly state the powers of the federal government but doesn't necessarily have to state the powers of the people or of the individual states. The 9th and 10th Amendments make this clear.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

This clearly says that despite the Constitution enumerating certain rights of the people it does not mean that there are no other rights except for those.

"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." - 10th Amendment

This amendment states that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution, and not prohibited to the states in Article 1, Section 10, are reserved to the individual states or to the people. That means that the federal government's only legitimate constitutional powers are explicitly stated in the Constitution, and anything else the government does is unconstitutional and a usurpation of power.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

This is correct.

 

[Oddball]

Maybe someone can tell me what I'm missing.

The 10th ammendment says the powers not delegated and enumerated to the fed are left to the states.

The powers that ARE delegated to the Fed are in Article 1; Section 8. Provide health care aint there (nor is provide for the general welfare).

Seems fairly cut and dried.

Not to people who conveniently ignore basic English composition, in order to "interpret" the general welfare clause to mean whatever they want it to.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

The Constitution for Kids

How it all works

The Constitution sets up three main branches of government. These are called the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Each one has its own role in how the law is made and used.

The Constitution consists of a preamble, seven original articles, twenty-seven amendments, and a paragraph certifying its enactment by the constitutional convention.


Preamble: Statement of purpose
Main article: Preamble to the United States Constitution
See also: wikisource:Constitution of the United States of America#Preamble
The Preamble states:

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended. "We the people", is one of the most-quoted sections of the Constitution. It was thought by the Federalists during this time that there was no need for a bill of rights as they thought that the preamble spelled out the people's rights.

Imagine that. The founders themselves had thought there was no need to have a bill of rights because things should've been evident. Imgaine you arguing with them if a bill had NOT been added.

you are officialy a dunce.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

The Constitution for Kids

How it all works

The Constitution sets up three main branches of government. These are called the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Each one has its own role in how the law is made and used.

The Constitution consists of a preamble, seven original articles, twenty-seven amendments, and a paragraph certifying its enactment by the constitutional convention.


Preamble: Statement of purpose
Main article: Preamble to the United States Constitution
See also: wikisource:Constitution of the United States of America#Preamble
The Preamble states:

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended. "We the people", is one of the most-quoted sections of the Constitution. It was thought by the Federalists during this time that there was no need for a bill of rights as they thought that the preamble spelled out the people's rights.

Imagine that. The founders themselves had thought there was no need to have a bill of rights because things should've been evident. Imgaine you arguing with them if a bill had NOT been added.

you are officialy a dunce.

The Federalists didn't feel a Bill of Rights was necessary because they argued that the federal government would be constrained by what the Constitution actually said, the Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe them and refused ratification unless a Bill of Rights was promised. Of course, the Anti-Federalists have been vindicated because as we know the Federalists did not limit themselves to what the Constitution actually said when in power.

 

[chanel]

Apparently "the general welfare" of the people has been interpreted yo include free healthcare, free and affordable housing (and unaffordable too for those that purchased over priced McMansions) and of course digital TV convertors. Unfortunately their interpretation trumps liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those of us stuck with the bill.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Apparently "the general welfare" of the people has been interpreted yo include free healthcare, free and affordable housing (and unaffordable too for those that purchased over priced McMansions) and of course digital TV convertors. Unfortunately their interpretation trumps liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those of us stuck with the bill.

Well, if paying taxes makes you so unhappy, I'm sorry to say that you'll be sad wherever you go.

 

[jillian]

The Federalists didn't feel a Bill of Rights was necessary because they argued that the federal government would be constrained by what the Constitution actually said, the Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe them and refused ratification unless a Bill of Rights was promised. Of course, the Anti-Federalists have been vindicated because as we know the Federalists did not limit themselves to what the Constitution actually said when in power.

*yawn*

Again, what they gave as their OPINIONS when the constitution was written has no force of law. And, in any event, again, we're not talking about some fundie's version of the bible.

Didn't getting spanked on this subject the other night teach you anything?

But why learn anything that contradicts your pre-determined OPINIONS?

 

[jillian]

Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

what limits? the general welfare clause is pretty expansive and was always intended to allow government to grow and operate. and if you'll note, there is a supremacy clause that subjugates state law to conflicting federal law.

If any of what you say were accurate, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

 

[del]

Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

what limits? the general welfare clause is pretty expansive and was always intended to allow government to grow and operate. and if you'll note, there is a supremacy clause that subjugates state law to conflicting federal law.

If any of what you say were accurate, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

sounds good

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Federalists didn't feel a Bill of Rights was necessary because they argued that the federal government would be constrained by what the Constitution actually said, the Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe them and refused ratification unless a Bill of Rights was promised. Of course, the Anti-Federalists have been vindicated because as we know the Federalists did not limit themselves to what the Constitution actually said when in power.

*yawn*

Again, what they gave as their OPINIONS when the constitution was written has no force of law. And, in any event, again, we're not talking about some fundie's version of the bible.

Didn't getting spanked on this subject the other night teach you anything?

But why learn anything that contradicts your pre-determined OPINIONS?

The states ratified the Constitution based on their "opinions," so if you change the meaning of the Constitution after the fact then you are committing fraud. The caselaw you love to cite is supposed to be based on the Constitution, and when it is not based on the Constitution then it is unconstitutional. Since the founders of the Constitution believed in a strictly limited federal government we can assume that's the correct interpretation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can you find the direct passage in the constitution that states one can't kill, rape or rob someone?

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

what limits? the general welfare clause is pretty expansive and was always intended to allow government to grow and operate. and if you'll note, there is a supremacy clause that subjugates state law to conflicting federal law.

If any of what you say were accurate, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

The general welfare clause was not meant to allow the government to grow and operate, as the Federalist Papers tell us. Also, if that were the case the amendment process would be completely unnecessary.

As to the Supremacy Clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

The federal laws must be "made in Pursuance thereof" the Constitution. So federal laws are only supreme if they have any basis in the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Non sequitur.

The Constitution isn't there to limit the actions of the people, it's role is to delineate specific powers to and limits on the feds.

what limits? the general welfare clause is pretty expansive and was always intended to allow government to grow and operate. and if you'll note, there is a supremacy clause that subjugates state law to conflicting federal law.

If any of what you say were accurate, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

sounds good

With a few changes I would certainly agree with this.