Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[jillian]

Hmm. It appears the court disagrees with you.


http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

Further, who among the people that wrote the constuttion held that the government was -not- limited to what it could do by the powers granted to it; rather it could do whatever it wanted so long as there was no specific prhohibition against it?

What, then, is the point of specifying a limited set of things it can do?


Please compare and contrast what you just said to what the court said.


Your cittations come from the FDR-packed court that also ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause allows the federal government to force an Ohio wheat farmer to sell all of his crop, rather than keep some for his own pruposes, using the same sort of logic that created the rulins in the cited cases.

And to think that you spoke of the un-constitutionalists that -Bush- appointed to the Supreme Court.

Marbury v. Madison? Please tell me you're kidding. There have been a few cases decided since then, no? Moreover, the sole holding of that case was the ability of the judiciay to determine whether or not legislation was Constitutional. It articulated the Court's power to review. It has no holding beyond that.

The cases I cited have never been overturned. They stand as law. And the Court found social security to be a fair outgrowth of government's power to tax.

I'm not even going to bother elaborating. This is why I stopped answering you last time. Your ignorance is simply outstanding.

By the by... FDR never packed the Court. Aside from not understanding law, you might want to go back and read your history. Did he threaten to? Absolutely.

I know the loonies on the right have hated the New Deal since it was enacted... hence the herculean efforts to destroy social security.

But you misspoke...misstated... and worse, you lack comprehension.

Oh...and try reading Marbury and the decisions I've cited. Because there's nothing in Marbury which contradicts what I said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Marbury v. Madison? Please tell me you're kidding. There have been a few cases decided since then, no?

Yes.
Show one that reverses the tenet laid out in that case, upon which the decision was based.

The cases I cited have never been overturned. They stand as law. And the Court found social security to be a fair outgrowth of government's power to tax.

None of that changes anything I said.

Your argument rests on 'yeah, well, the court said so, regardless of what they based the decision on'. The arguments they presented rest on nothing other than 'yes, well we like the Hamiltonian view better than the madisonian view' and made th erest up out of whole cloth.

And, of course, if "the court said so" is good enough, then you must have no issue with Bush v Gore.

I'm not even going to bother elaborating. This is why I stopped answering you last time. Your ignorance is simply outstanding.

Said the desert to the grain of sand.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unbelievable. A lawyer arguing that the Constitution is meaningless. Pray tell why list what powers the Government has if they have any power except what it says they do not have? Your ignorance is appalling. Using your logic the federal Government can do anything, anytime it wants for any reason except like 4 things not allowed by amendment.

I wonder why, if this were true, that every Congress has in fact found some way to claim every power falls within the specific powers granted to the Congress?

Pray tell, whats the point of the 10th Amendment? If the Federal Government has no restrictions, why would it have an amendment specify the power the Fed doesn't have still rests with the States or the people?

Artilcle I section 9 and section 10 are quite clear. They establish specific powers that the Government has and specific a couple things the Government can never do. There is absolutely no point to the 9 section if in fact your claim that the Government can do anything it wants is true.

Further it total negates the entire debate at the creation and ratification process of the Constitution. You remember where the founders and writers all insisted no Bill of Rights was required because the Government could only do what the Document SPECIFICALLY said it could? You do recall that? Or shall I go hunt up some quotes for you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unbelievable. A lawyer arguing that the Constitution is meaningless. Pray tell why list what powers the Government has if they have any power except what it says they do not have?'

Gioven the argument in place, there needs be only 2 clauses in Article I section 8 -- the first and the last.

As to why the others are there, no one can guess...

 

[Diuretic]

I do not know if Social Security, specifically, has ever been taken before the court. Conlaw was about 10 years ago.

But, a better question:
Why would it be NOT be struck down if there's no power specifically granted by the Constitution?

If it's obviously unconstitutional then why hasn't it been taken before the Supreme Court and booted out?

 

[Diuretic]

Come on fellas, you've been done over - man up and admit it and - RGS, don't misrepresent someone's point

Unbelievable. A lawyer arguing that the Constitution is meaningless.

That's bullshit and you know it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Come on fellas, you've been done over - man up and admit it and - RGS, don't misrepresent someone's point



That's bullshit and you know it.

No it is not. The Constitution grants specific power, it is a document that limits government power and requires additional powers be granted BY the people, not the Legislature.

The entire argument was had when it was drafted and the 13 original States were asked to Ratify it. THE SPECIFIC question was why weren't there lists of things the Government could NOT do. No Bill of Rights. The answer was that the Document ONLY grants specific powers and that unless a power is IN the Constitution, the Federal Government could not claim it for their own. The Bill of Rights was drafted over the protest of the founders.They did it only because ratification did not seem possible with out it, or rather a promise of it.

The Courts and Congress have always worked under the knowledge that the Constitution grants powers, and those NOT granted remain with either the States or the People. There would in fact be no need to amend the document if the Government could simply do what ever it wanted.

If our current Law schools are not teaching this we have a very serious problem. If a licensed practicing attorney can claim the Federal Government is free to what ever it wants anytime it wants except if denied by the Constitution we have a serious flaw in our legal system.

 

[Diuretic]

No it is not. The Constitution grants specific power, it is a document that limits government power and requires additional powers be granted BY the people, not the Legislature.

I wasn't referring to "additional powers". I've been educated here about how amendments are proposed and made and I understand that now. However, as I understand it the constitution is to be interpreted by lawmakers. Whether or not a law is unconstitutional is the role of the Supreme Court and I believe it gave itself that role in Marbury v Madison. That being so then it seems to me that legislature can pass what it likes but the Supreme Court will hunt out and strike down anything it sees as unconstitutional. I'm not suggesting that the Congress should go off and try and do stupid things in the name of proposing and passing legislation, merely suggesting that while they look to the constitution for guidance and authority they are also guided by the Supreme Court as to the validity of the legislation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wasn't referring to "additional powers". I've been educated here about how amendments are proposed and made and I understand that now. However, as I understand it the constitution is to be interpreted by lawmakers. Whether or not a law is unconstitutional is the role of the Supreme Court and I believe it gave itself that role in Marbury v Madison. That being so then it seems to me that legislature can pass what it likes but the Supreme Court will hunt out and strike down anything it sees as unconstitutional. I'm not suggesting that the Congress should go off and try and do stupid things in the name of proposing and passing legislation, merely suggesting that while they look to the constitution for guidance and authority they are also guided by the Supreme Court as to the validity of the legislation.

Wrong. The legislature MUST address what power gives them the right to create a law or regulation. When creating NEW powers they must find someway to put them in the specific powers granted to them by the Constitution.

If they fail to provide a Constitutional authority the Court case is going to be very very short. Jillian is claiming this is not true, that since the Constitution does not preclude it, it is allowed, THIS is NOT true. The Constitution GRANTS power, any power not granted is NOT allowed to the Federal Government. A Lawyer should know this, if it is not being taught we have a serious problem.

 

[jillian]

I wasn't referring to "additional powers". I've been educated here about how amendments are proposed and made and I understand that now. However, as I understand it the constitution is to be interpreted by lawmakers. Whether or not a law is unconstitutional is the role of the Supreme Court and I believe it gave itself that role in Marbury v Madison. That being so then it seems to me that legislature can pass what it likes but the Supreme Court will hunt out and strike down anything it sees as unconstitutional. I'm not suggesting that the Congress should go off and try and do stupid things in the name of proposing and passing legislation, merely suggesting that while they look to the constitution for guidance and authority they are also guided by the Supreme Court as to the validity of the legislation.

Just to clarify a little... yes, the Supreme Court is the final word. But it doesn't hunt down unconstitutional actions or legislation. An actual "case and controversy" has to be brought before it by someone who is negatively affected by whatever the act or inaction is.

I love when people think their rights will be protected out of thin air and get all offended when they're told their rights are only as strong as the enforcement of those rights. *shakes head*

Also, Marbury only addressed the issues of checks and balances... it in no way addressed the powers of Congress which exist through the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause. And those powers have found to be very broad.

 

[Diuretic]

Just to clarify a little... yes, the Supreme Court is the final word. But it doesn't hunt down unconstitutional actions or legislation. An actual "case and controversy" has to be brought before it by someone who is negatively affected by whatever the act or inaction is.

I love when people think their rights will be protected out of thin air and get all offended when they're told their rights are only as strong as the enforcement of those rights. *shakes head*

Also, Marbury only addressed the issues of checks and balances... it in no way addressed the powers of Congress which exist through the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause. And those powers have found to be very broad.

Thanks jillian - good to be able to learn out of the discussions. I have to admit to racing to catch up but it's fun learning.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given the court's argument that supports the constitutionality of Social Security -- that the power to tax for the common defense and the general welfare necessarily creates the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare -- can anyone tell me why the people that wrote the constitution bothered enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just to clarify a little... yes, the Supreme Court is the final word. But it doesn't hunt down unconstitutional actions or legislation. An actual "case and controversy" has to be brought before it by someone who is negatively affected by whatever the act or inaction is.

I love when people think their rights will be protected out of thin air and get all offended when they're told their rights are only as strong as the enforcement of those rights. *shakes head*

Also, Marbury only addressed the issues of checks and balances... it in no way addressed the powers of Congress which exist through the necessary and proper clause or the commerce clause. And those powers have found to be very broad.

What? You mean to say the Congress MUST use a listed power of the Constitution, rather then your claim they can just do anything they want if it is not precluded in writing in the Constitution?

 

[AllieBaba]

We have the right to obtain healthcare.

Not the right to have it provided.

 

[jillian]

We have the right to obtain healthcare.

Not the right to have it provided.

And?

I believe the discussion moved on from there a long time ago... to

COULD we provide healthcare?

Answer: Yes....

The question then becomes a moral ethical and economic one... should we? and to what extent?

 

[jillian]

What? You mean to say the Congress MUST use a listed power of the Constitution, rather then your claim they can just do anything they want if it is not precluded in writing in the Constitution?

You know that isn't what I said at all....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You know that isn't what I said at all....

You did not write this?

That would be incorrect. Something does not need to be included in the Constitution for it to be "constitutional". It simply can't be PROHIBITED by the Constitution.

post number 438 to be exact.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not about what she says, it's about what she means.

Er..what did you mean, exactly? Remember, words mean something.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given the court's argument that supports the constitutionality of Social Security -- that the power to tax for the common defense and the general welfare necessarily creates the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare -- can anyone tell me why the people that wrote the constitution bothered enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?

Anyone?

 

[Diuretic]

I think your question is moot.