SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- May 7, 2004
- 6,101
- 259
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
jillian said:there's no such thing as "obamacare" and neither the plans that are in the works nor medicare are unconstitutional.
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
there's no such thing as "obamacare" and neither the plans that are in the works nor medicare are unconstitutional.
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Under the Constitution, Congress isn't authorized to run, regulate, or subsidize our health care. Because the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't expressly authorize it to do, federal intervention in health care is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court hasn't struck down unconstitutional programs such as Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit
Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Medicare is NOT Constitutional.
Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.
This is the first clause of article I section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
It says right there congress can tax to provide for the general welfare.
So you're wrong.
I am well aware of the opening clause. Of course being the dishonest lib you are you failed to have the balls to post the rest of it.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
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.
I am also well aware that the libs of has 'general welfare' as an excuse to basically do whatever they want, which is far from what the framers intended. Evidence of which can be found in the federalist papers.
Again one has to be being purposely obtuse to ignore the context of this section of the constitution. The framers certainly good have just left that clause and done no more with that section. But they didn't. That clause is followed by more than a dozen very specific duties granted to the fed. Deny all you like but the intent of the framers in doing so was so that the fed would have limited power.
[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. [Writings of Thomas Jefferson ,Library Edition, 1904, 147149.]
People like yourself lack a basic understanding of why the constution was written the way it was. You miss the nuance of it and smart a document it truly is.
You mean, people like myself, who intepret it like THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE 3RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WRITER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE interprets it? Yeah - we're nutballs!They simply overlooked the fact that people like yourself would be intellectually dishonest in interpreting it despite us knowing how they meant for it to be interpreted.
Maybe because the framers had an intuition that smarmy know-it-all authoritarian thugs would do their dead-level best to interpret "general welfare" as generally as they possibly could, more than likely to their particular political benefit?I thought the Constitution was written in plain English that did not need interpretation? Why would we need to look to the Federalist Papers if they wrote it in a way that doesn't require interpretation?I am also well aware that the libs of has 'general welfare' as an excuse to basically do whatever they want, which is far from what the framers intended. Evidence of which can be found in the federalist papers.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
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.
You'll note that each enumerated power of the Congress begins with the capitalized word "To" The FIRST of those enumerated powers is
"To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Take a look at the original http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/slurp_file.php?fileref=4
The "T" in the "To" preceding every enumerated power is very large and stylized - and in the original, immediately after the phrase "The Congress Shall have the Power" there is a SPACE - and then the exact same "To" that begins every other enumerated power.
I thought the Constitution was written in plain English that did not need interpretation? Why would we need to look to the Federalist Papers if they wrote it in a way that doesn't require interpretation?
You mean, people like myself, who intepret it like THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE 3RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND WRITER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE interprets it? Yeah - we're nutballs!
Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.
This is the first clause of article I section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
It says right there congress can tax to provide for the general welfare.
So you're wrong.
Why is Obamacare unconstitutional but Medicare is not?
Medicare is NOT Constitutional.
Why not?
Screaming pointed to the 10th amendment. Also see Article I, Section 8. this is a rather specific list of the things government can do.
This is the first clause of article I section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
It says right there congress can tax to provide for the general welfare.
So you're wrong.
I don't think I've ever seen him correct about anything.
Federalist 41: James Madison
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury; or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied by signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
more to the point.... "Says WHO?"
Has SCOTUS ever said that Medicare was unconstitutional? If not, then, BY DEFINITION, it is not unconstitutional.
Why not?
more to the point.... "Says WHO?"
Has SCOTUS ever said that Medicare was unconstitutional? If not, then, BY DEFINITION, it is not unconstitutional.
Wrong. They are the last word on the issue. That doens't mean their word is right. If the supreme court always got it right in terms of whether something is constitutional there would never be a split decisions on anything.