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

[ShootSpeeders]

The Feds don't have the authority to set up the FBI or Border Patrol either, since neither is part of a "standing Army".

But RW'ers sure bitch about wanting those two agencies to catch Muslims and Mexicans.

Rounding up illegals is a function of the states according to the constitution. That's the way us RWers want the illegal issue handled.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Feds don't have the authority to set up the FBI or Border Patrol either, since neither is part of a "standing Army".

But RW'ers sure bitch about wanting those two agencies to catch Muslims and Mexicans.

Rounding up illegals is a function of the states according to the constitution. That's the way us RWers want the illegal issue handled.

+1 we would rather handle it ourself here in tx. Shut down ice and the illegal immigration problem will disappear. Face it the Feds suck at everything they do.

 

[RoccoR]

Vox; et al,

First, while I agree that Healthcare should be affordable, I don't agree with either the functionality of the "Affordable Care Act" passed by Congress, or the way it is implemented. But that is NOT the nature of the question.

The basics of the question is: Did Congress act inside the Constitutional Authority when it passed the Affordable Care Act?

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.

(COMMENT)

I agree with our friend "VOX." If you accept the logic of the SCOTUS, Congress passed a "tax" to institute the Affordable Care Act; and the associated “economic dragooning."

The Affordable Care Act was passed under the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to effect the "General Welfare;" under Article 1, Section 8, of The Constitution.

Remember, there is nothing in The Constitution that says Members of Congress must act in the best interest of their constituents.

For instance: The Office of Personnel Management issued a proposed rule in August making clear that the government would continue to pay the employer contribution for congressional health benefits at the same rate as if members were still on the federal plan.​

Congress did not care because they knew they would be taken care of in the changeover by Senator Grassley and the "drafting error" in the legislation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[thereisnospoon]

[]

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

Hey stupid. Your points 1 & 2 are in the constitution but point 3 is not!! No where does the constitution say the Courts may repeal a law they think violates the constitution. Only congress can repeal a law since the very first words of the constitution after the preamble say all legislative power is vested in congress.

Correct. SCOTUS can opine a law to be in violation of the Constitution, however that simply places the burden on the Congress to change the parts of the law by legislation.
The SCOTUS makes it's rulings without passion or prejudice.
Actually there is no provision to repeal a law. New legislation must be written to counter an existing law.
Even Constitutional amendments cannot be repealed. A new Amendment mst be ratified to counter an existing Amendment.
For example, The 18th Amendment outlawed the consumption, sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages and libations.
The 21st Amendment was written to outlaw the 18th Amendment. Yes the term "repeal" is used in the text, but the 21st had to be written and ratified in order for this to take place. There is no provision to simply make a law or Amendment 'disappear'..

 

[regent]

True, the Constitution does not stipulate the Court has the power to declare an act of the president, the Congress or the states unconstitutional, but it is now accepted as fact in American government. The framers may have intended the outcome as it occurred, and there is evidence of that, but in reality Marshall simply outfoxed Jefferson and it now part of our system. The true irony of the thing is that some of the Court usually refer back to original intent in some cases, but what was the intent of the framers and judicial review?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

True, the Constitution does not stipulate the Court has the power to declare an act of the president, the Congress or the states unconstitutional, but it is now accepted as fact in American government.

Accepted by who.? Millions of people reject this judicial tyranny.

 

[englishbritish]

You say its unconstitution for the government to initiate a health care plan and maybe your right but the constitution was written over a hundred years ago and obviously was not written to deal with the politics and economic situations of our time and I believe its time for a new one.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Correct. SCOTUS can opine a law to be in violation of the Constitution, however that simply places the burden on the Congress to change the parts of the law by legislation.
.

Actually congress doesn't have to do anything when the scotus says a law violates the constitution. Federal judges have very little authority and that's as it should be since they are appointed for life. In a democracy the power must be with elected officials subject to periodic removal.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You say its unconstitution for the government to initiate a health care plan and maybe your right but the constitution was written over a hundred years ago and obviously was not written to deal with the politics and economic situations of our time and I believe its time for a new one.

Fine - then amend the constitution. Get an amendment passed saying something like "Congress shall have authority to set up a national health care system".

Until then any national HC plan is void and the states must say so.

 

[Steven_R]

You say its unconstitution for the government to initiate a health care plan and maybe your right but the constitution was written over a hundred years ago and obviously was not written to deal with the politics and economic situations of our time and I believe its time for a new one.

If only there was a way to amend an inadequate document...

But naw, that's too much work. Let's just do what we want and come up with a legal justification later. It isn't like the courts are going to defend that moldy old paper anyways.

 

[MMWI]

I could make a pretty strong case with article one, section 8, the first and last sentences, under the "provide for the general welfare" clause. Of course that would be in a courtroom. I don't expect those complaining about it to give in to reason.

 

[bendog]

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.

We should refight the civil war again .... wait that didn't turn out so well!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I could make a pretty strong case with article one, section 8, the first and last sentences, under the "provide for the general welfare" clause. Of course that would be in a courtroom. I don't expect those complaining about it to give in to reason.

So make it. Prove to us that obozocare will in fact provide for the general welfare. I and millions of other americans say it will make things worse. You're the one insisting we must go beyond the listed powers of congress, so the burden of proof is on you. Let's see it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You say its unconstitution for the government to initiate a health care plan and maybe your right but the constitution was written over a hundred years ago and obviously was not written to deal with the politics and economic situations of our time and I believe its time for a new one.

I think you misunderstand the way our country works.
The government simply does not have the authority to discharge the Constitution and rewrite another simply to meet the needs of government.
Our Constitution is a LIMITING document. Which means, unless WE THE PEOPLE decide to permit the government to do something, it CANNOT..
End of your participation here.

 

[regent]

This argument began as soon as the ink dried on the Constitution and has been in play ever since. The sides changed one or two times but the argument is always with us. Usually the party out of power uses the strict version the most, but the political parties are somewhat flexible depending on the issue. A couple more Civil Wars and it will all be shippy-shape.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

We should refight the civil war again .... wait that didn't turn out so well!

Yup - that's what lincoln said. Abandon states rights and accept central planning or i will kill 600,000 people. And he did.

 

[antique4xpu]

almost everyone on social security collects far more than they ever paid in .

but socialism is only a bad thing to conservatives when it is a program that you can not qualify for

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You say its unconstitution for the government to initiate a health care plan and maybe your right but the constitution was written over a hundred years ago and obviously was not written to deal with the politics and economic situations of our time and I believe its time for a new one.

I think you misunderstand the way our country works.
The government simply does not have the authority to discharge the Constitution and rewrite another simply to meet the needs of government.
.

If by "government" you mean federal govt, you are right. But the state governments can call a convention to propose amendments and if 3/4 of the states ratify the amendments, then they are passed. The feds cannot ratify constitutional amendments - only the states can. One more proof the FF believed in states rights and a weak federal govt.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

almost everyone on social security collects far more than they ever paid in .

but socialism is only a bad thing to conservatives when it is a program that you can not qualify for

I have seen no evidence that recipients collect more than they pay in. It's just something we are told over and over and people accept it.

 

[emilynghiem]

It doesn't. But it doesn't have to. Your point?

A. By the Tenth Amendment, the powers not expressly given to the federal govt are RESERVED TO THE STATES OR TO THE PEOPLE.

B. You can write and sign any contract and make it law as long as the parties CONSENT TO IT.

Here, half the Nation and Congress clearly DO NOT CONSENT.
So that is NOT a lawfully binding contract.

The language I would use is
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
JUST POWERS OF GOVT ARE DERIVED FROM "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED"

These are natural laws on democratic government by human nature and free will within a peaceful society of law and order.

So you can play with the letter of the law, day and night,
but if you cross and go against human nature, you will have a fight on your hands.

NO human being I have ever met agreed to comply with a contract
that was written without their consent with someone else signing their name to it
and worse, charging them fines if they didn't follow it.

goes against human nature, the natural laws upon which our Constitution is founded,
including and especially the Bill of Rights protecting religious freedom, right to petition, and due process to correct overreaching by govt by direct check and balance by the people!