Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not quite. Thats what the Bill of Rights was for, not the other documents. And if they wanted clear, specific delineations of what the fed could do, why didn't they specify them?

Well if you must question the legitimacy of the Federalist Papers then perhaps the 10th Amendment will clarify the issue.

"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."

This means that since Healthcare is not delegated to the federal government then the federal government may not get into the business of Healthcare.

Again, its a vague document.

There's nothing vague about the 10th Amendment. It says that the states and the people reserve all the powers that they have not ceded to the federal government through the Constitution. The states nor the people gave the federal government the power to create a universal healthcare policy in the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Really?

So where in the Constitution does it say government can infringe upon speech?

And if it doesn't give the government the right to do that, than why a need for a first amendment?

Or was it, perhaps, that they recognized that it was vague, but wanted some rights to be absolute despite the vaguaries of the constitution?

That was precisely the argument of the Federalists. They said a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution already protected those rights by not giving the government the power to suppress them. However, the Anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights explicitly guaranteeing certain inherent rights was promised to them.

Seems the Anti-Federalists knew the document a bit better than the Federalists did. Its a vague document, there is no arguing that.

The Anti-Federalists had a healthy and well-founded distrust of government and didn't want the government to use the excuse of a "vague document" to be able to suppress the freedoms of the people.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, the "father of the Constitution"

The operating phrase here being "whatever in their discretion." No doubt a lot of ex post facto laws would promote the General Welfare, but the Constitution forbids them.

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

You realize, I hope, that this quote is meaningless without any context.

Article 1, Section 8 is very explicit about Congress' duty to provide for the general welfare, yet it does not enumerate a single way in which Congress must, or even should, do so.

 

[Oddball]

Article 1, Section 8 is very explicit about Congress' duty to provide for the general welfare, yet it does not enumerate a single way in which Congress must, or even should, do so.

I've been to a world's fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I've seen posted anywhere...counting sillybooboo.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

They only failed to add: "PERIOD!"

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

...I agree that NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that the government is responsible for giving you health care. It also doesn't say that the government is responsible for giving us life liberty or hapiness....it does state that we all have the right to persue those things but it in NO WAY makes the government responsible for providing them.

Then again, the Constitution does say that the government is responsible for "provid[ing] for the common defense" and "promot[ing] the general welfare." I've already shown how a certain basic level of healthcare applies to the former.

As you so adeptly pointed out it is responsible for providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.

Promoting is not the same as providing. yes the govt can advocate for universal health care but they are not allowed to provide for it as they are for the common defence. At least not in the language you quoted.

I just re-read this post and am wondering just how you show that a basic level of healthcare becomes the governments responsiblity through the language of the constitution.

I am open minded so lay it out there for me and maybe I'll accept what you are saying.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I just re-read this post and am wondering just how you show that a basic level of healthcare becomes the governments responsiblity through the language of the constitution.

I am open minded so lay it out there for me and maybe I'll accept what you are saying.

I can think of several arguments that support this theory, but for simplicity I'll start with one and we'll see on which side things fall when we come to an agreement.

Let's begin with the tie between healthcare and the economy. In the 18th and early 19th century, when modern medicine as we know it was barely in its infancy, the cost of healthcare was a fairly fixed expense. A farmer might have paid for a doctor's house call with a few chickens, for example, and everything would have been balanced. With the explosion of new drugs, electonic equipment, lab techniques, and on and on, the historical economy of health care has obviously become obsolete. Costs are far too high and continue to climb.

In response, people began to regard insurance as a solution, and perhaps it would be if health insurance were strictly non-profit (but that's a completely different discussion). But the concept of applying a free-market, profit-oriented model to healtcare is, to put it bluntly, insane. Patients can't exactly shop around for the best hospital for the dollar when they have a broken leg to set.

In response to the need of profit-making insurers - especially the publicly traded companies - to grow their profits every quarter, their premiums get higher and they provide less service (often by dropping clients from their rolls). The economic impact is obvious: consumers have less to spend on the rest of the economy with an increasing proportion of their budgets going to healthcare. Not to mention that (according to a recent Harvard study) about 50% of personal bankruptcies are the result of major medical expenses.

So the question becomes whether the government has a responsibility to bolster the economy - by providing health care or by any other means - through the language of the constitution. To be honest, I'm not enough of a con-law expert to answer this thoroughly, but I believe it's safe to say that the government at least has the right to bolster the economy, given the language of the constitution. Aside from the recent bailout, there have been federal loan programs for small businesses, federal home loan programs, and a variety of other economic incentives over the last 40 years or more, none of which have been deemed unconstitutional.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I just re-read this post and am wondering just how you show that a basic level of health-care becomes the governments responsibility through the language of the constitution.

I am open minded so lay it out there for me and maybe I'll accept what you are saying.

I can think of several arguments that support this theory, but for simplicity I'll start with one and we'll see on which side things fall when we come to an agreement.

Let's begin with the tie between health care and the economy. In the 18th and early 19th century, when modern medicine as we know it was barely in its infancy, the cost of health care was a fairly fixed expense. A farmer might have paid for a doctor's house call with a few chickens, for example, and everything would have been balanced. With the explosion of new drugs, electronic equipment, lab techniques, and on and on, the historical economy of health care has obviously become obsolete. Costs are far too high and continue to climb.

In response, people began to regard insurance as a solution, and perhaps it would be if health insurance were strictly non-profit (but that's a completely different discussion). But the concept of applying a free-market, profit-oriented model to health care is, to put it bluntly, insane. Patients can't exactly shop around for the best hospital for the dollar when they have a broken leg to set.

In response to the need of profit-making insurers - especially the publicly traded companies - to grow their profits every quarter, their premiums get higher and they provide less service (often by dropping clients from their rolls). The economic impact is obvious: consumers have less to spend on the rest of the economy with an increasing proportion of their budgets going to health care. Not to mention that (according to a recent Harvard study) about 50% of personal bankruptcies are the result of major medical expenses.

So the question becomes whether the government has a responsibility to bolster the economy - by providing health care or by any other means - through the language of the constitution. To be honest, I'm not enough of a con-law expert to answer this thoroughly, but I believe it's safe to say that the government at least has the right to bolster the economy, given the language of the constitution. Aside from the recent bailout, there have been federal loan programs for small businesses, federal home loan programs, and a variety of other economic incentives over the last 40 years or more, none of which have been deemed unconstitutional.

I'm following you at the moment but I'm still not seeing where the constitution makes it the federal government's responsibility. As a disclaimer I want to tell you I feel the bailouts, federal home loan programs (fanny/Freddy), TARP, the take over of auto industry, etc are all actions by the federal government which the constitution did not give them the authority to do.

The only economic "incentives" that i feel the govt is allowed to give out are in the form of tax breaks for individuals or corporations. So the rest to me is an abuse of power by the federal government.

Now if your town or state government wanted to do some of the stuff that the feds have been up to I may be more accepting of it. As long as the citizens of the state get to vote on the decision.

The federal government has no authority under the constitution, in my opinion, to do anything but protect us from foreign threats militarily and oversee international trade relations. All things in country, again in my opinion, were intended by the founders of our country to be handled by local governments and at the extreme the state governments.


I know you said your not a constitutional law expert and neither am I so if you have more to say back please do. I thoroughly enjoy good, decent, and respectable discussions like this.

 

[Old Rocks]

If the Constitution were so unequivocal, there would be no need for a Supreme Court to interpret it.

You will note, I hope, that the Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.

Looks like history is as poorly taught as reading comprehension in tha gubament schools!!

Well, the majority of Americans believe your interpretation is completely full of shit. We will get a real Health Care System. If not this go round, then the next. What we cannot achieve in one stroke, we shall acheive incrementally.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Dude - You can't do a battle of wits with a guy that has no ammo!!! Same way with stupid. You can't fix stupid.

ammo? gusy like fuk-face-dude are shooting blanks.

you have shot a few yourself Dev....i would not get to excited....

 

[Old Rocks]

Well if you must question the legitimacy of the Federalist Papers then perhaps the 10th Amendment will clarify the issue.

"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."

This means that since Healthcare is not delegated to the federal government then the federal government may not get into the business of Healthcare.

Again, its a vague document.

There's nothing vague about the 10th Amendment. It says that the states and the people reserve all the powers that they have not ceded to the federal government through the Constitution. The states nor the people gave the federal government the power to create a universal healthcare policy in the Constitution.

What is the percentage of Americans that believe that we would be better off with a single payer Health Care System?

Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer - Healthcare-NOW!

Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer
February 5, 2009 by Healthcare-NOW!
Filed under Single-Payer News



A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.

The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, “59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.”

Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.

The Doctors' Revolt | The American Prospect

The Doctors' Revolt

Doctors, the traditional advocates for the medical status quo, are increasingly in favor of major reforms to the U.S. health-care system.

Roger Bybee | July 1, 2008 | web only



Doctors have historically been the watchdogs of the U.S. medical system, with the American Medical Association scaring New Dealers into dropping national health coverage from the Social Security Act and then the AMA shredding Harry Truman's reform efforts in the late 1940s. But a new poll and other significant indicators suggest that doctors are turning against the health-insurance firms that increasingly dominate American health care.

The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals. These plans are typically funded by a mix of general tax revenues and payroll taxes, and essential health-care is administered by nonprofit government agencies rather than private insurers.

 

[Oddball]

The majority of Americans couldn't tell you how many articles there are in the Constitution, let alone be well versed enough on it, the BoR, and the Federalist/Anti-federalist Papers to have any kind of interpretation on what those writings mean.

And Fabian socialist scumbags like you are counting on that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Article 1, Section 8 is very explicit about Congress' duty to provide for the general welfare, yet it does not enumerate a single way in which Congress must, or even should, do so.

I've been to a world's fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I've seen posted anywhere...counting sillybooboo.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

They only failed to add: "PERIOD!"

They failed to add Period, because they were not as unintelligent as you.

 

[Old Rocks]

The majority of Americans couldn't tell you how many articles there are in the Constitution, let alone be well versed enough on it, the BoR, and the Federalist/Anti-federalist Papers to have any kind of interpretation on what those writings mean.

And Fabian socialist scumbags like you are counting on that.

Ah, you dingbat wingnuts certainly get excited when someone calls your hand.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Uhm stupid, the Federalist papers are but one opinion on things. What about what all the founding fathers and signers of the US Cosntitution thought and why---why did they give us an amendment process if they wanted their wishes and desires and ideas to hold sway hundreds of years later?

Yes...Yes...

Why would anyone want any elaboration on the meaning of the semantics in the Constitution, from its principal architect??

Principal architect? Oh please, another myth?

another myth Dev?.....this says he was....are we shooting blanks?

The original Constitution, as proposed in 1787 in Philadelphia and as ratified by the states, contained very few individual rights guarantees, as the framers were primarily focused on establishing the machinery for an effective federal government. A proposal by delegate Charles Pinckney to include several rights guarantees (including "liberty of the press" and a ban on quartering soldiers in private homes) was submitted to the Committee on Detail on August 20, 1787, but the Committee did not adopt any of Pinckney's recommendations. The matter came up before the Convention on September 12, 1787 and, following a brief debate, proposals to include a Bill or Rights in the Constitution were rejected. As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder (legislative determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10). The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities. Delegates also probably feared that a debate over liberty guarantees might prolong or even threaten the fiercely-debated compromises that had been made over the long hot summer of 1787.

In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

 

[Oddball]

Ah, you dingbat wingnuts certainly get excited when someone calls your hand.

You didn't call jack shit, comrade.

In order for someone to have any interpretation on anything, they have to know what it says in the first place.

If anyone got called on their wingnuttery, it was you.

 

[caela]

I haven't read the whole thread and am not going to pretend I have. I have some pretty strong opinions on this subject (most healthcare workers do) but I'm going to leave those aside for the moment as well. What I want to comment on is those people that keep talking about how we are the only wealthy, industrialize, nation in the world that doesn't have some form of Nationalized Health Care.

If you think we're a WEALTHY nation then you are clearly not bothering to turn the news on of late. Our debt continues to grow by leaps and bounds (it was already bad when he was elected but Obama and his Congress have worked to make it exponentially worse in short order) and other industrialized nations (read China and India) are already in talks about moving to a reserve currency other than the dollar.

We're still pretending to be a rich nation but the fact is we are beyond broke and simply don't have the money in the cookie jar to pay for another entitlement program.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I'm following you at the moment but I'm still not seeing where the constitution makes it the federal government's responsibility. As a disclaimer I want to tell you I feel the bailouts, federal home loan programs (fanny/Freddy), TARP, the take over of auto industry, etc are all actions by the federal government which the constitution did not give them the authority to do.

The only economic "incentives" that i feel the govt is allowed to give out are in the form of tax breaks for individuals or corporations. So the rest to me is an abuse of power by the federal government.

Okay, now that you've established your opinion, perhaps you could provide something to support it.

Have there been any constitutional challenges to any of the above programs? Can you cite the cases? Can you explain why you disagree with the final decision of the highest court the case got to?

The federal government has no authority under the constitution, in my opinion, to do anything but protect us from foreign threats militarily and oversee international trade relations. All things in country, again in my opinion, were intended by the founders of our country to be handled by local governments and at the extreme the state governments.

To a large extent, the Articles of Confederation (which predated the Constitution) were meant to ensure this kind of scenario. As it turned out - in today's parlance - they were an "epic fail." The Constitution allowed the federal government to do much more in country while still delegating much of the legal authority to the states.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Doctors have historically been the watchdogs of the U.S. medical system, with the American Medical Association scaring New Dealers into dropping national health coverage from the Social Security Act and then the AMA shredding Harry Truman's reform efforts in the late 1940s. But a new poll and other significant indicators suggest that doctors are turning against the health-insurance firms that increasingly dominate American health care.

The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals. These plans are typically funded by a mix of general tax revenues and payroll taxes, and essential health-care is administered by nonprofit government agencies rather than private insurers.

Rocks you do realize that the great majority of the people polled in these stupid polls....think that National Health Insurance means they can go to doctor,produce a card,and get any kind of treatment for anything that ails them no matter what it is,no matter how minor or how major,not get rejected for ANYTHING....and its ABSOULUTLY FREE...so yea i guess most would say "yes i want it"
and in Canada if you want to buy your own ins. that might be better than what the govt. has...by Canadian law...you cannot do it....your stuck with the federal shit...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, its a vague document.

There's nothing vague about the 10th Amendment. It says that the states and the people reserve all the powers that they have not ceded to the federal government through the Constitution. The states nor the people gave the federal government the power to create a universal healthcare policy in the Constitution.

What is the percentage of Americans that believe that we would be better off with a single payer Health Care System?

Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer - Healthcare-NOW!

Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer
February 5, 2009 by Healthcare-NOW!
Filed under Single-Payer News



A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.

The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, “59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.”

Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.

The Doctors' Revolt | The American Prospect

The Doctors' Revolt

Doctors, the traditional advocates for the medical status quo, are increasingly in favor of major reforms to the U.S. health-care system.

Roger Bybee | July 1, 2008 | web only



Doctors have historically been the watchdogs of the U.S. medical system, with the American Medical Association scaring New Dealers into dropping national health coverage from the Social Security Act and then the AMA shredding Harry Truman's reform efforts in the late 1940s. But a new poll and other significant indicators suggest that doctors are turning against the health-insurance firms that increasingly dominate American health care.

The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers. Most industrial societies -- including nations as diverse as Taiwan, France, and Canada -- have adopted universal health systems that provide health care to all citizens and permit them free choice of their doctors and hospitals. These plans are typically funded by a mix of general tax revenues and payroll taxes, and essential health-care is administered by nonprofit government agencies rather than private insurers.

None of this has anything to do with the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Article 1, Section 8 is very explicit about Congress' duty to provide for the general welfare, yet it does not enumerate a single way in which Congress must, or even should, do so.

I've been to a world's fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I've seen posted anywhere...counting sillybooboo.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

They only failed to add: "PERIOD!"

They failed to add Period, because they were not as unintelligent as you.

They added "Period" at a later date. It's the 10th Amendment.