Where does the constitution give Congress power to set up national health care?

[P@triot]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

you asked and I delivered

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure 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.

buuuuuuuuuuut with your lack of intellect you probably won't understand ...right there in black and white for all to see ... I guess you missed it .... AGAIN

Hey asshat, promote the general welfare does not mean provide for the general welfare. The 18 enumerated powers that are the constitutional responsibility of the federal government (such as protecting intellectual property and defense) promotes the general welfare. When you take from one group of people and give to another, you are not doing shit for the "general". You are fucking over one goup for the special interest of another.

Clearly it's you [MENTION=36822]billyerock1991[/MENTION] who lacks intellect as you obviously do not understand what "promote" or "general" means.

I love owning Dumbocrats in a debate....

 

[auditor0007]

Its not unconstitutional.

SCOTUS said so.

The End.

it is definitely not the end.

even if you wish so

SCOTUS said that the individual mandate as a tax is constitutional, not the law. there are plenty of provisions which still are challenged.

Once the ACA has been set in motion, dismantling it will cost trillions. Of course, dismantling it is the most likely way to get us to single payer as quickly as possible.

 

[emilynghiem]

Once the ACA has been set in motion, dismantling it will cost trillions. Of course, dismantling it is the most likely way to get us to single payer as quickly as possible.

Why not just make it optional to fund and follow?
The government and corporate interests are already treating it that way, as optional to participate, why not recognize the constitutional free choice of all citizens equally?

The fastest way I see to fix this
is to hold the PARTIES responsible who voted for it.

So if 98% support came from Democrat affiliations and 2% or whatever
came from John Roberts and lenient Republicans who support this,
then those people who AGREE can form a network to enforce and manage this.

The option to fund it can be separated by party,
similar to expecting Hindus, Muslims, Catholics and Buddhists to fund their
own programs through their own nonprofit religious organizations.

The major parties should be treated the same way, especially where
their "political beliefs" differ from members of other affiliations who
have EQUAL CONSTITUTIONAL rights and freedoms to fund their own
belief systems WITHOUT discrimination, oppression or coercion from govt,
much less tax penalties and other punishments for not believing in federal mandates.

 

[DiamondDave]

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Congress has the authority to pass legislation. The Healthcare law was legislation that was legally passed by Congress

They cannot pass any legislation though.. it must be in line with the strict enumerated powers of the congress... not some made up power that some other branch decided to say existed and they give permission to do (beyond what their own constitutional power)..

That is the problem with government is that they have gone beyond their constitutional mandate and it continues to go unchecked.. even to the point where they grab more for each other across the branches..

 

[RKMBrown]

Once the ACA has been set in motion, dismantling it will cost trillions. Of course, dismantling it is the most likely way to get us to single payer as quickly as possible.

Why not just make it optional to fund and follow?
The government and corporate interests are already treating it that way, as optional to participate, why not recognize the constitutional free choice of all citizens equally?

The fastest way I see to fix this
is to hold the PARTIES responsible who voted for it.

So if 98% support came from Democrat affiliations and 2% or whatever
came from John Roberts and lenient Republicans who support this,
then those people who AGREE can form a network to enforce and manage this.

The option to fund it can be separated by party,
similar to expecting Hindus, Muslims, Catholics and Buddhists to fund their
own programs through their own nonprofit religious organizations.

The major parties should be treated the same way, especially where
their "political beliefs" differ from members of other affiliations who
have EQUAL CONSTITUTIONAL rights and freedoms to fund their own
belief systems WITHOUT discrimination, oppression or coercion from govt,
much less tax penalties and other punishments for not believing in federal mandates.

The problem is we are treating the symptoms not the cause.

You want to solve health care? Fix the pricing scams. Force health care providers to have one set of prices for all vs. being able to have one price for medicare patients and other price for cash patients, and a yet another price for hmo, and....

Force them to post their prices up front. Create a system where we can shop for health care based on price.

Expand on support for HSAs where the people get to spend their health care dollars as they see fit.

One good thing from Obama Care was allowing insurance companies to cross state lines.

Break up Obama Care. Break up the health care monopolies. Then watch the prices fall.

 

[P@triot]

obama lied and the people got screwed

More importantly - taxes cannot originate in the Senate (they must originate in the House). And Obamacare originated in the Senate. Thus (and ironically), the Supreme Courts ruling that Obamacare is "constitutional" as a "tax" in fact renders it unconstitutional.

any tax bill can originate in the senate ... the deal is the house has to agree on it are you really this stupid]

[MENTION=36822]billyerock1991[/MENTION] continues to display is extraordinary ignorance of his own government...

According to the Origination Clause of the United States Constitution, all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with the Westminster system requiring all money bills to originate in the lower house.

Origination Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appropriation bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rightwinger]

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Congress has the authority to pass legislation. The Healthcare law was legislation that was legally passed by Congress

They cannot pass any legislation though.. it must be in line with the strict enumerated powers of the congress... not some made up power that some other branch decided to say existed and they give permission to do (beyond what their own constitutional power)..

That is the problem with government is that they have gone beyond their constitutional mandate and it continues to go unchecked.. even to the point where they grab more for each other across the branches..

Have you seen some of the legislation passed by Congress? Congress can pass any law that it wants.

However, the President must sign off on it

Then the Courts can step in if it is challenged for Constitutionality

THAT is the way our Constitutional system works, not by some 18th century interpretation by a bunch of internet posters

 

[antique4xpu]

good grief ...... there are hundreds of necessary programs that are not specified in the constitution.

the founding fathers were liberal and they understood new things would come up and need attention.

there is no mention of the federal aviation commission in the constitution ...... DUH!

a national food inspection service , interstate commerce , national health agency , environmental protection ........ all necessary in our society , none mentioned in the constitution ..... grow up and quit listening to fox news ........ they will lead you to greed and stupidity

 

[Mr. President]

Basically this all boils down to the federal reserve wanting more money.

 

[antique4xpu]

It's not there and that means they don't have it - the states do. Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional as is 99% of what the feds do. The states need to grow a pair and scream about this.

you asked and I delivered

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure 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.

buuuuuuuuuuut with your lack of intellect you probably won't understand ...right there in black and white for all to see ... I guess you missed it .... AGAIN

Hey asshat, promote the general welfare does not mean provide for the general welfare. The 18 enumerated powers that are the constitutional responsibility of the federal government (such as protecting intellectual property and defense) promotes the general welfare. When you take from one group of people and give to another, you are not doing shit for the "general". You are fucking over one goup for the special interest of another.

Clearly it's you [MENTION=36822]billyerock1991[/MENTION] who lacks intellect as you obviously do not understand what "promote" or "general" means.

I love owning Dumbocrats in a debate....

republiclowns love owning "dumbocrats" as much as they loved owning slaves
so long as they are able to wage wars that the common man pays for , they could care less if children have milk to drink

conned-servatives live only for themselves and the right to abuse anyone who is less fortunate ( but probably works harder )

 

[Mr. President]

Democrats were the slave owners

 

[francoHFW]

OP- I guess I'll go with the Supreme Court over ignorant loudmouth hater dupes. Anyway, it was at least the Civil War before going to a 'doctor' was even a good idea. When the constitution was written, you went to a BARBER and got bled fer crying out loud LOL

 

[Snookie]

The guv has emminate domain besides time to put your trust in the Savior

Where does the constitution give the power to build interstates?

 

[francoHFW]

The people who used to be conservative southern Dems are now conservative southern republicans DUH.

 

[Snookie]

Where does the constitution give the government the right to create national parks?

 

[Snookie]

Where does the constitution give the government the right to do anything?

 

[Snookie]

Where does the constitution have the power to send a man to the moon?

 

[Mr. President]

SO you agree Snookie, the government has overstepped on to many occasions.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Here's all that I can say about the whole thing:
1. If something isn't specifically addressed in the Constitution, the federal government can regulate it, if they choose to do so.
2. We are the only western nation in which people have had to file bankruptcy because of health care costs and that is just plain wrong.
3. People who don't carry any health insurance end up costing you and me when they need significant health care.
So, what's the solution, because the way it's been going, it needs an overhaul?

 

[kaz]

good grief ...... there are hundreds of necessary programs that are not specified in the constitution.

the founding fathers were liberal and they understood new things would come up and need attention.

there is no mention of the federal aviation commission in the constitution ...... DUH!

a national food inspection service , interstate commerce , national health agency , environmental protection ........ all necessary in our society , none mentioned in the constitution ..... grow up and quit listening to fox news ........ they will lead you to greed and stupidity

When you said the founding fathers were "liberal," that's true, but that's by the true definition of liberal, which is libertarian. The people who call themselves liberal today are actually authoritarians. It's a mixed up, muddled up shook up world...

As to your point, the founding fathers did think of the idea that things would change. They were clever buggers that way. Here's how it works. Two-thirds, two-thirds and three-quarters.

The idea that 5 of 9 could change the Constitution is a crime committed by the Supreme Court. It doesn't appear anywhere in the document. Even Madison v. Marbury, which is where the Supreme Court gave itself Constitutional review didn't do that. That decision said the Supreme Court could determine if a law was valid by the Constitution. It did not give the Supreme Court the power to change the Constitution.