Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[M14 Shooter]

I think your question is moot.

Because?

Seems to me that it directly addresses the validity of the argument.

 

[Diuretic]

Because?

Seems to me that it directly addresses the validity of the argument.

With respect there's no argument in that question, it's rhetorical. All I know about the early years of your constitution is that there was disputation between two major interpretations of it involving Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton was inclined to a more centralist view and Jefferson was inclined to a more decentralised, states-powers view of how the constitution operated. Now, since some of the original framers of the constitution were arguing about its meaning, I think a question that asks someone here to go back and work out their thinking is somewhat moot. From what I've read it appears that in the waxing and waning of the various opinions on the constitution that the doctrine of implied powers has sometimes been successful and indeed there seems to be some fairly strong case law on that. Since the social security legislation was bolstered by the implied powers doctrine and by the interpretation of other aspects of the constitution then it seems to me that the founders may well have intended that the constitution should be interpreted as needed to make sure that its principles were maintained in the future nation and that it wasn't to be seen as a millstone around the neck of future citizens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With respect there's no argument in that question, it's rhetorical. All I know about the early years of your constitution is that there was disputation between two major interpretations of it involving Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton was inclined to a more centralist view and Jefferson was inclined to a more decentralised, states-powers view of how the constitution operated. Now, since some of the original framers of the constitution were arguing about its meaning, I think a question that asks someone here to go back and work out their thinking is somewhat moot.

Well... The powers granted to Congress were enumerated for a reason - that it was necessary to specify the limited set of things that Congress could do. No one disputes this.

What -is- in dispute here is the validity of the claim that the power to tax for X -necessarily- creates the power to create programs that provide X. This interpretation by the court means that specifying the other 16 powers od Congress was redundant and unnecessary.

This obviously conflicts with the idea that it was necessary to enumerate a limited set powers for Congress, and raisies thre question that I asked:

If 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 -- why did the people that wrote the constitution bother enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?

It seems to me that the founders may well have intended that the constitution should be interpreted as needed to make sure that its principles were maintained in the future nation and that it wasn't to be seen as a millstone around the neck of future citizens.

The founders created a mechanism for this -- the amendment process.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Notice Jillian has not responded to her obvious misrepresentation of what the Constitution does and does not do?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Notice Jillian has not responded to her obvious misrepresentation of what the Constitution does and does not do?

She also hasn't explained why she has a problem with Congressmen having access to the same retirement benefits her husband has access to that does NOT have to do with the amount of time necessary to become vested.

 

[Diuretic]

That's getting close to ad hom, not in the sense of being a personal attack but in being irrelevant to the issue in dispute. I'm more comfortable with looking at the enumerated powers question, it's more on topic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's getting close to ad hom, not in the sense of being a personal attack but in being irrelevant to the issue in dispute. I'm more comfortable with looking at the enumerated powers question, it's more on topic.

She has contradicted herself and then slipped away when called on it. Plain and simple.

 

[Diuretic]

She has contradicted herself and then slipped away when called on it. Plain and simple.

Then instead of gossiping on the side wouldn't it be better to simply make the point and then let jillian respond when she logs on? And if she chooses not to respond, so what? The point has been put, we can read it, no need for sideline chatter really.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then instead of gossiping on the side wouldn't it be better to simply make the point and then let jillian respond when she logs on? And if she chooses not to respond, so what? The point has been put, we can read it, no need for sideline chatter really.

Last I checked you do not get to tell me or anyone else what we can or can not post.

And you still do not grasp Enumeration , I keep having to remind you that the Constitution grants power in a very limiting manner If it does not GIVE a power the Federal Government does not have that power, unlike Jillian's claim that if it does not deny a power it does have it. And she is a Lawyer. That she can make that claim after all the schooling she had is damning. Either the Law schools and tests are not teaching that or she somehow did not learn it and still managed to pass the Bar.

 

[Diuretic]

Last I checked you do not get to tell me or anyone else what we can or can not post.

You have that wrong. I do get to tell you or anyone else what you can or cannot post. You can ignore me but that doesn't mean I can't tell you.

And you still do not grasp Enumeration , I keep having to remind you that the Constitution grants power in a very limiting manner If it does not GIVE a power the Federal Government does not have that power, unlike Jillian's claim that if it does not deny a power it does have it. And she is a Lawyer. That she can make that claim after all the schooling she had is damning. Either the Law schools and tests are not teaching that or she somehow did not learn it and still managed to pass the Bar.

And I suspect that you don't understand the law. I realise what enumerated powers are. I also realise how constitutional law is interpreted. I mentioned the doctrine of implied powers.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
“The Congress shall have power …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."


Well hush ma mouth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
“The Congress shall have power …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."

Well hush ma mouth.

Yes. But note the section in bold.
The elastic clause doesnt give Congress the power to do whatever it wants, it gives Congress the power to create the laws necessary to exercise the powers it was given in the rest of Article I sec 8.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes. But note the section in bold.
The elastic clause doesnt give Congress the power to do whatever it wants, it gives Congress the power to create the laws necessary to exercise the powers it was given in the rest of Article I sec 8.

I think that's sensible. No constitution should grant unlimited power to a legislature, there has to be limits.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think that's sensible. No constitution should grant unlimited power to a legislature, there has to be limits.

Yet you keep asking why , when no clause provides the authority, that the legislature can not just do as it pleases. I keep asking you and Jillian where the Congress would get the authority to create Universal health care. Her response was that since the Constitution doe not say the legislature can not do it, they can, which is absolutely wrong. And you keep defending that position.

You keep asking why the legislature can not do it, I keep asking you to provide the clause that gives the authority to Congress also. It is a simple question. Your answer is along the lines of "well it is the right thing to do" or " it is a responsibility of Government" Neither of which have any power in the Constitution.

The Federal Government is NOT supposed to be involved in Individual citizens lives in such a manner. It is supposed to be involved in the health and welfare of the COUNTRY, by ensuring States get along and providing a unified controlling authority to ensure that, to ensure that National Defense is taken care of, to ensure one voice speaks for the Country with foreign powers and the rest of the world.

The power to intervene in such a manner with individual citizens is the power of the State as defined by THEIR Constitutions.

 

[Diuretic]

I've finished asking why. I found the answer. The doctrine of implied powers works for me and apparently it works for others.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've finished asking why. I found the answer. The doctrine of implied powers works for me and apparently it works for others.

Yes. But there is a direct contradiction in that doctrine and the one of specific and limited powers. Thus, my question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I've finished asking why. I found the answer. The doctrine of implied powers works for me and apparently it works for others.

Once again for the slow. Implied powers must still be linked to a specific power. Other wise there is no limits what so ever on the Government and the Constitution is worthless.

This is born out by the fact that ever power Congress has is in fact directly linked to a specific power in the Constitution. Including all implied powers. Further READ the implied powers clause. IT IS CLEAR, implied powers ONLY apply to ensure that SPECIFIED powers are in fact able to be enacted. They have to be LINKED.

Congress knows this and justifies every one of its laws and powers by indicating which specific power they say applies. Currently the biggest fraud is the Commerce Clause. Congress invokes it for anything and everything. Education is supposedly covered by this clause using the excuse that without education we would have no commerce.

If claiming the power to tax is an excuse to tax for ANYTHING, then again the entire section 9 of the article I is not needed, it can be thrown out.

You may like Implied Powers but it does not say what you and Jillian claim it says.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes. But there is a direct contradiction in that doctrine and the one of specific and limited powers. Thus, my question.

Why does the Social Security Act exist when it's not mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[Diuretic]

Once again for the slow. Implied powers must still be linked to a specific power. Other wise there is no limits what so ever on the Government and the Constitution is worthless.

This is born out by the fact that ever power Congress has is in fact directly linked to a specific power in the Constitution. Including all implied powers. Further READ the implied powers clause. IT IS CLEAR, implied powers ONLY apply to ensure that SPECIFIED powers are in fact able to be enacted. They have to be LINKED.

Congress knows this and justifies every one of its laws and powers by indicating which specific power they say applies. Currently the biggest fraud is the Commerce Clause. Congress invokes it for anything and everything. Education is supposedly covered by this clause using the excuse that without education we would have no commerce.

If claiming the power to tax is an excuse to tax for ANYTHING, then again the entire section 9 of the article I is not needed, it can be thrown out.

You may like Implied Powers but it does not say what you and Jillian claim it says.

I'm not slow, you just haven't proved anything yet

What about the "necessary and proper clause"?

 

[Psychoblues]

You're so silly, gunny!!!!!!!!!

And I suspect you have told every one of the million.

Are you overly proud of yourself, huh, huh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What about the "necessary and proper clause"?

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

What about it?
The elastic clause doesnt give Congress the power to do whatever it wants, it gives Congress the power to create the laws necessary to exercise the powers it was given in the rest of Article I sec 8.