Health Care Bill Constitutionality?

peptoabysmal said:
During the mid-1930s, when for a brief time the Court invalidated some aspects of the New Deal, a majority of the Justices accepted the argument that Congress lacks the power "to protect the general public interest and the health and comfort of the people. (1) That argument was predicated on an exceedingly narrow conception of the authority of the federal government to address problems of national dimension under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The Court quickly abandoned that attack on the New Deal as inconsistent with the text and structure of the Constitution and, indeed, with the Court's own precedents.(2)

... snip ...

Regardless who wrote this, I think it is a valid argument,
Click to expand...


LOL!

First of all, I think their description "an exceedingly narrow conception" is a dead giveaway as to the agenda of the Clinton DOJ lackeys who wrote this *opinion* (and yes, inconsistency on the part of those lackeys in not enforcing the law and Constitution in other clear cut circumstances is indeed reason to be skeptical about their opinion in this one). Another reason is the fact that they failed to even mention what actually transpired in order to make the Court change it's mind regarding its initial ruling on the Constitutionality of the New Deal. Do you know that history?

Citing legal precedent and the words of the framers of the Constitution, from 1933 to 1936, the Supreme Court ruled various key programs of the New Deal unconstitutional ... in particular, the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which established the Public Works Administration (PWA) and the National Recovery Administration, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Likewise, 11 of the 16 Alphabet Laws (which created various New Deal agencies) were declared unconstitutional. These agencies and laws greatly expanded the power of the Federal government and, in particular, the executive branch. The NIRA, for example, allowed FDR to allocate over $3 billion (as much as had been spent by the government in the previous decade) through executive orders, by-passing Congress entirely. Over and over the argument of the Supreme Court was that FDR was trying to impose the power of the federal government on state governments in an unconstitutional manner and that provisions of these laws were in excess of the congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Many of these were unanimous Court rulings.

Now what happened to change their minds? Did any new precedents come to light? No. Did the framers of the Constitution utter something new? No. Did the wording of the Constitution change? No. What happened is that following his reelection in 1937, FDR declared war on the Supreme Court.

In February, claiming that the Court was "thwarting the will of the nation", he informed his cabinet that we was sending to Congress a proposed reorganization of the federal judiciary system. That plan called for adding judges at all levels of the court system, including adding a Justice to the Supreme Court for every Justice who refused to retire after the age of 70, up to a maximum Court size of 15 Justices. Through this means, he planned to appoint enough Justices to uphold his New Deal programs regardless of what the "old men" wanted. It's called stacking the courts.

Just imagine ... in their desire to get their socialist agenda in place ... the leftists in FDR's administration were willing to subvert the Supreme Court and alter the very structure of the government our founders created (sound familiar?). Under pressure, some of the Supreme Court justices (all of them old men over 60) caved. Now maybe they did it to keep the Court from being expanded. Maybe they did it to keep themselves from being forced off the court at 70. Or perhaps the law rammed through Congress in March of 1937, which allowed Supremes to retire after 70 at full pay (six of the nine judges were already over 70), had something to do with it? In any case, the timing and suddenness of their "switch in time that saved nine" is reason to be skeptical about those citing this as proof that what Obama is trying to do now is Constitutional.

:D
 
BeAChooser said:
Just imagine ... in their desire to get their socialist agenda in place ... the leftists in FDR's administration were willing to subvert the Supreme Court and alter the very structure of the government our founders created (sound familiar?).
Click to expand...

So the court-packing scheme fails but the justices cave anyway. FDR's socialist agenda moves forward and....the U.S. still didn't become a socialist nation.
 
tyr_13 said:
The crazy thing is that the framers knew that their intents wouldn't keep up with time and designed mechanisms for future change. It's always confused me as to how people will argue that they didn't think things would change when they made it a key feature of our government.
Click to expand...


The key “mechanism for future change” is the process for amending the Constitution. If it is deemed necessary for government to act outside of the bounds of what the Constitution currently allows, the answer to to amend the Constitution to allow this new action.


The only legitimate way to allow the federal government to grow into the bloated mess that it has become would have been to amend the Constitution specifically to allow it—either by repealing the Tenth Amendment, and replacing it with text granting the federal government greater authority to claim powers not explicitly granted it; or else by adding text that outlines additional powers to be put under the federal government.

This has not been done, and until it is done, a very large part of what the federal government now does, and a very large part of what it proposes to do, it does in blatant violation of the Constitution.


One thing that the framers did not anticipate was the lengths to which government would go, and to which the people would allow government to go, in perverting the Constitution in order to claim powers that are not there.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The key “mechanism for future change” is the process for amending the Constitution. If it is deemed necessary for government to act outside of the bounds of what the Constitution currently allows, the answer to to amend the Constitution to allow this new action.
Click to expand...
Bob where is your venom against the constitutionality of medicare?
 
Alt+F4 said:
FDR's socialist agenda moves forward and....the U.S. still didn't become a socialist nation.
Click to expand...


The federal government just nationalized General Motors! That's just one step, but a very major step, away from the free nation that this was supposed to be, and toward a socialist tyranny. One of very many steps that started with FDR.

It was FDR's socialist agenda, and his corrupt tactics used to forward it, that set the stage for the long collapse in which this nation has been ever since.


If not for the precedents set by FDR, we would not see a lot of the crap going on now that is. We would not see the federal government trying to take over the health care industry. We would not see a major automaker—once a great symbol of American free enterprise—turned into an agency of the government. We would not have seen three billion dollars of our money wasted on the ridiculous “Cash for Clunkers” scam.

Before FDR, our government would have known better than to try to pull such crap as this, and we, the people, would have known better than to allow it. Before FDR, we would have known to keep government in its rightful place, as our servant, and not as our master.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Before FDR, we would have known to keep government in its rightful place, as our servant, and not as our master.
Click to expand...

You should read "The Jungle" and see the photographs of Jacob Riis if you want to see what America was like when the government was "in its rightful place".
 
ponderingturtle said:
Bob where is your venom against the constitutionality of medicare?
Click to expand...


I don't see how “venom” is a relevant word to use here, but it is very simple. The Constitution does not state that the federal government has the power to run such a program as Medicare, so, per the Tenth Amendment, it is unconstitutional for it to do so. If we want such a program, run by government, then it either needs to be run at the state level, and not at the federal level; or else the Constitution needs to be explicitly amended to allow it.

As it is, the Constitution is being violated, and this is one of very, very many examples of how the American people have been brainwashed not only into tolerating such a violation, but into even defending it.
 
BTW thank you BAC and BB for FINALLY posting something resembling a legal theory. Hope you didn't hurt yourselves in the effort. I still think you are wrong but at least you are trying to play by the rules.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The key “mechanism for future change” is the process for amending the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That might be the "key" for making changes that would otherwise conflict with the Constitution, but it's clear that there are provisions for Congress to pass laws that it deems necessary and proper for the general welfare that fall within its enumerated powers.

The issue, of course, is that some of you think that this bill does not fall within its enumerated powers. I would again point to the general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause and all the case law that supports the current relatively broad interpretation of those powers.

If you have a case for the unconstitutionality of this bill, it would have to be able to undo a great deal of case law and currently accepted legislation.

I understand the position that says the SCOTUS has had it wrong for the past 50 years or more, but that's a much bigger issue than the constitutionality of this bill. In other words, I don't think there is a case for the unconstitutionality of this bill that wouldn't require the radical change of the appearance and functioning of the federal government.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't see how “venom” is a relevant word to use here, but it is very simple. The Constitution does not state that the federal government has the power to run such a program as Medicare, so, per the Tenth Amendment, it is unconstitutional for it to do so. If we want such a program, run by government, then it either needs to be run at the state level, and not at the federal level; or else the Constitution needs to be explicitly amended to allow it.

As it is, the Constitution is being violated, and this is one of very, very many examples of how the American people have been brainwashed not only into tolerating such a violation, but into even defending it.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not state that the Federal Government has the power to run an Air Force or the FAA;therefore the Air Force and FAA are unconstitutional.
I don't know who taught you constitutional law but he needs to be fired, fast.
 
"One of the ways Congress can get around the constitutionality of the bill is that the penalty for not having health insurance will be defined as a tax and not a fine. Sneaky?... yes. Constitutional?"

Call it a tax, but it seems that is a 'fine' without due process ?

Any other taxes you know of that are imposed for NOT doing something?
 
BeAChooser said:
LOL!

First of all, I think their description "an exceedingly narrow conception" is a dead giveaway as to the agenda of the Clinton DOJ lackeys who wrote this *opinion* (and yes, inconsistency on the part of those lackeys in not enforcing the law and Constitution in other clear cut circumstances is indeed reason to be skeptical about their opinion in this one). Another reason is the fact that they failed to even mention what actually transpired in order to make the Court change it's mind regarding its initial ruling on the Constitutionality of the New Deal. Do you know that history?

Citing legal precedent and the words of the framers of the Constitution, from 1933 to 1936, the Supreme Court ruled various key programs of the New Deal unconstitutional ... in particular, the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which established the Public Works Administration (PWA) and the National Recovery Administration, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Likewise, 11 of the 16 Alphabet Laws (which created various New Deal agencies) were declared unconstitutional. These agencies and laws greatly expanded the power of the Federal government and, in particular, the executive branch. The NIRA, for example, allowed FDR to allocate over $3 billion (as much as had been spent by the government in the previous decade) through executive orders, by-passing Congress entirely. Over and over the argument of the Supreme Court was that FDR was trying to impose the power of the federal government on state governments in an unconstitutional manner and that provisions of these laws were in excess of the congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Many of these were unanimous Court rulings.

Now what happened to change their minds? Did any new precedents come to light? No. Did the framers of the Constitution utter something new? No. Did the wording of the Constitution change? No. What happened is that following his reelection in 1937, FDR declared war on the Supreme Court.

In February, claiming that the Court was "thwarting the will of the nation", he informed his cabinet that we was sending to Congress a proposed reorganization of the federal judiciary system. That plan called for adding judges at all levels of the court system, including adding a Justice to the Supreme Court for every Justice who refused to retire after the age of 70, up to a maximum Court size of 15 Justices. Through this means, he planned to appoint enough Justices to uphold his New Deal programs regardless of what the "old men" wanted. It's called stacking the courts.

Just imagine ... in their desire to get their socialist agenda in place ... the leftists in FDR's administration were willing to subvert the Supreme Court and alter the very structure of the government our founders created (sound familiar?). Under pressure, some of the Supreme Court justices (all of them old men over 60) caved. Now maybe they did it to keep the Court from being expanded. Maybe they did it to keep themselves from being forced off the court at 70. Or perhaps the law rammed through Congress in March of 1937, which allowed Supremes to retire after 70 at full pay (six of the nine judges were already over 70), had something to do with it? In any case, the timing and suddenness of their "switch in time that saved nine" is reason to be skeptical about those citing this as proof that what Obama is trying to do now is Constitutional.

:D
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say. FDR had huge political capital when he first took office and much of what he did in his first 100 days was repealed or changed. FDR was re-elected in 1936 btw.

He did attempt to stack the courts, yes, but that has little bearing on the fact that Congress does have the constitutional right to create new programs and tax the heck out of us for them. As long as they call it a tax, I think they will get it through. There might be an issue with the deals made with certain states: "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;"

Can you cite any program or tax that has been determined to exceed Congress' power in the last, say 50 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom