Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[jillian]

The Constitution also doesn't grant corporations the same status as individual citizens. The Constitution was written BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

For good reason, that's a state issue. The Constitution only gives the federal government its power. Not the states.

well, yes....and...no.

the mechanisms of incorporation are a status issue. same as age of majority. however, if the mechanisms of incorporation of a particular state impact on interstate commerce (such as a state creating overly onerous requirements for out of state corporations to register to do business in the state), then the commerce clause takes precedence. By the same token, if such "status" rules are discriminatory or otherwise violate the constitution, then the feds take precedence under the supremacy clause.

it isn't one-size-fits-all... it's case by case and the supreme court isn't a fundie congregation applying a literal interpretation to the bible.

 

[jillian]

I don't have to channel Madison, I can read Federalist № 41, which are his exact thoughts on the matter.

All well and good, but you do know that Madison's opinions have no force of law, right? We have 200 years of caselaw interpreting the Constitution since then which DOES have force of law.

 

[Oddball]

Cite which case law repealed the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8??

Take your time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't have to channel Madison, I can read Federalist № 41, which are his exact thoughts on the matter.

All well and good, but you do know that Madison's opinions have no force of law, right? We have 200 years of caselaw interpreting the Constitution since then which DOES have force of law.

Yes, but Madison's insight allows us to know what the founders intended when they drafted the Constitution, and tells us whether that 200 years of caselaw has any actual basis in the Constitution.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

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

Totally wrong. No paragraph in Section 8 beyond the first one is defined as a requirement for providing for the general welfare of the United States. In fact, there are no such defined requirements.

 

[Oddball]

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

Totally wrong. No paragraph in Section 8 beyond the first one is defined as a requirement for providing for the general welfare of the United States. In fact, there are no such defined requirements.

The Federalist doctrine of enumerated powers dictates that if the power isn't spelled out, it doesn't exist.

If it's not in Article 1, Section 8, it's beyond the pervue of congress to act.

 

[jillian]

I don't have to channel Madison, I can read Federalist № 41, which are his exact thoughts on the matter.

All well and good, but you do know that Madison's opinions have no force of law, right? We have 200 years of caselaw interpreting the Constitution since then which DOES have force of law.

Yes, but Madison's insight allows us to know what the founders intended when they drafted the Constitution, and tells us whether that 200 years of caselaw has any actual basis in the Constitution.

irrelevant unless you don't understand constitutional construction.

sorry kevin,we've been this route... play the constitutional "expert" after you've studied some constitution with people who know what they're talking about.

and while you're at it, read this.. .learn something because 200 years of precedent IS the Constitution.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Totally wrong. No paragraph in Section 8 beyond the first one is defined as a requirement for providing for the general welfare of the United States. In fact, there are no such defined requirements.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. The founders listed the powers of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, and it was with these powers that the government was intended to promote the general welfare. The 10th Amendment made clear that only those powers listed were legitimate powers of the federal government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All well and good, but you do know that Madison's opinions have no force of law, right? We have 200 years of caselaw interpreting the Constitution since then which DOES have force of law.

Yes, but Madison's insight allows us to know what the founders intended when they drafted the Constitution, and tells us whether that 200 years of caselaw has any actual basis in the Constitution.

irrelevant unless you don't understand constitutional construction.

sorry kevin,we've been this route... play the constitutional "expert" after you've studied some constitution with people who know what they're talking about.

Sorry jillian, but if the caselaw goes against the original intent of the Constitution then it has no basis in the Constitution.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

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

Totally wrong. No paragraph in Section 8 beyond the first one is defined as a requirement for providing for the general welfare of the United States. In fact, there are no such defined requirements.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. The founders listed the powers of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, and it was with these powers that the government was intended to promote the general welfare. The 10th Amendment made clear that only those powers listed were legitimate powers of the federal government.

It should be fairly obvious that "providing for the general welfare" can - and usually has - involved many, many other federal goverment actions that were not otherwise explicitly defined in the rest of section 8. That fact does not in any way diminish the powers affirmed as reserved for the states under the 10th amendment.

 

[jillian]

The Federalist doctrine of enumerated powers dictates that if the power isn't spelled out, it doesn't exist.

If it's not in Article 1, Section 8, it's beyond the pervue of congress to act.

That's actually totally and completely incorrect.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I'm afraid this:

FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution

Is the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Totally wrong. No paragraph in Section 8 beyond the first one is defined as a requirement for providing for the general welfare of the United States. In fact, there are no such defined requirements.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. The founders listed the powers of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, and it was with these powers that the government was intended to promote the general welfare. The 10th Amendment made clear that only those powers listed were legitimate powers of the federal government.

It should be fairly obvious that "providing for the general welfare" can - and usually has - involved many, many other federal goverment actions that were not otherwise explicitly defined in the rest of section 8. That fact does not in any way diminish the powers affirmed as reserved for the states under the 10th amendment.

Absolutely it does. If the federal government does something not listed as its power then the federal government is usurping the powers of the individual states.

 

[Oddball]

"General welfare" is an aim, not the mechanism in and of itself.

You don't need anything more than rudimentary English reading comprehension skills to see that.

 

[jillian]

No, I'm afraid this:

FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution

Is the Constitution.

You're intentionally obtuse, aren't you?

Cause once again, you're a waste of bandwidth...

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Absolutely it does. If the federal government does something not listed as its power then the federal government is usurping the powers of the individual states.

Has any state ever brought such a challenge to the federal court system? They would have ample opportunity almost any time a bill was signed by the president.

 

[jillian]

"General welfare" is an aim, not the mechanism in and of itself.

You don't need anything more than rudimentary English reading comprehension skills to see that.

really? then why do you think you need to be a constitutional SCHOLAR to interpret the Constitution and even then the SCHOLARS don't agree?

Hint: it's because these are complicated issues and you diminish the document by trying to make it some ridiculous literalist piece of paper.

 

[Oddball]

"General welfare" is an aim, not the mechanism in and of itself.

You don't need anything more than rudimentary English reading comprehension skills to see that.

really? then why do you think you need to be a constitutional SCHOLAR to interpret the Constitution and even then the SCHOLARS don't agree?

Hint: it's because these are complicated issues and you diminish the document by trying to make it some ridiculous literalist piece of paper.

Speaking of purposefully obtuse!!!

Wanna play a little 7-card stud with your "living rules"???

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I'm afraid this:

FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution

Is the Constitution.

You're intentionally obtuse, aren't you?

Cause once again, you're a waste of bandwidth...

Sure. But I'd consider not realizing that original intent is essential in deciding what is and is not constitutional is obtuse.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Sure. But I'd consider not realizing that original intent is essential in deciding what is and is not constitutional is obtuse.

Ultimately, original intent can only be guessed at, unless you're a necro-telepath.