US prioritys

[Virus]

I didnt say No military.
But do you belive the war in Irak for example was and is needed to protect the USA?

Did you trust Saddam Hussein to keep his hands of WMD? Did you trust Saddam to never aid or abet a terrorist organization? Despite being a repeat offender of both of those things? Did you trust Uday Hussein not do those things when he took power?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe because "provide for the common defense" is front and center in the Constitution but "provide a guarantee for health insurance access" is not.

Really?

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;

Also:

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.

Just for a bonus, here in Missouri our state motto is: Salus populi suprema lex esto. ("The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.")
I mostly cite the last one to show the connection between the word "welfare" and the idea of "health". (The Latin word salus can be translated as either of these words.)

ETA: To head off your quibbling over the wording you used, "the common defence" doesn't say one word about tanks or nuclear bombs, so it's not fair to let the text "common defense" apply to specific ways of providing for the common defense, but not to do the same with the phrase "general welfare".

 

[Donal]

Why do i have the impression that most US citizens are less outraged about Military spending than about Healthcare spending?

Because you're looking at it wrong?

The war's have been sold to you as necessary, and i think the majority agrees on that. Those war's are thought to save US Citizens lives.

Ya, there was no outrage over Iraq. It wasn't like hundreds of thousands marched in protest on almost a daily basis or anything. Its not like it cost the Republicans the last 2 election cycles or anything.

But when it comes to saving lives of US citizens by Healthcare, we hear alot lot moaning about the Costs.

You hear that from far right Republicans. They happen to have very loud bullhorns. One of the main issues Obama won the 2008 election on was healthcare. One of the main reasons his poll numbers slipped was the perception that he wasn't moving fast enough on that and other issues.

Do you really think there would be this much talk about it if it weren't a major concern for a huge number of Americans?

i cant understand that.

when you go as far and start Wars outside your country, and atack others to save Lives of others, why is it asked to much to save lives of your fellow countrymen in a peacefull way?

This is asked to the people that are generally against UHC, not those that think UHC is needed but the current bill sucks.

Because one of the values of the "American Way" is self reliance (whether or not this is actually practiced is another discussion). We're taught early on to be proud and not to accept help from the government except in times of emergency.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really?

Let's look at a bit from what you quoted: "general Welfare of the United States". What exactly does that mean? Well, let's look at the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

When the constitution refers to the "United States", it means the federal government. If it means citizens, it says "people". The "general welfare" clause does not give authority to the federal government to do anything for the welfare of the population. Rather, this clause allows congress to pass laws needed to operate the federal government. If the "general welfare" clause was truly as broad as you suggest, then the subsequent enumeration of congressional powers would be completely superfluous.

Just for a bonus, here in Missouri our state motto is: Salus populi suprema lex esto. ("The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.")

Indeed: the welfare of the people, not the state. Which makes the Missouri state motto very different from the US constitution.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let's look at a bit from what you quoted: "general Welfare of the United States". What exactly does that mean? Well, let's look at the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Remember that the general welfare clause is in exact parallel to "the common defense". DDWW said that the legal difference is because "the common defense" was specified in the Constitution but a category corresponding to healthcare was not. The two places "the common defense" is specified, so is "the general welfare".

When the constitution refers to the "United States", it means the federal government. If it means citizens, it says "people". The "general welfare" clause does not give authority to the federal government to do anything for the welfare of the population.

I suggest you re-read the clause:

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;

While I agree that the clause doesn't grant authority to do anything in the name of general welfare, it does indeed grant the authority to raise and spend funds for the general welfare of the country. By your logic, there is no authority for the common defense of the people, just the states, and that's clearly not so.

Indeed: the welfare of the people, not the state. Which makes the Missouri state motto very different from the US constitution.

Yes, I know--but thanks for stating the obvious. I specifically gave you the reason I cited that: to show the similarity in meaning between the words "health" and "welfare".

ETA: But most impotantly, re-read DDWW's post that I was responding to. I think you're trying to make it out that I'm saying something more than I am. I'm merely claiming that DDWW's rationale is wrong.

 

[DDWW]

Remember that the general welfare clause is in exact parallel to "the common defense". DDWW said that the legal difference is because "the common defense" was specified in the Constitution but a category corresponding to healthcare was not. The two places "the common defense" is specified, so is "the general welfare".


I suggest you re-read the clause:


While I agree that the clause doesn't grant authority to do anything in the name of general welfare, it does indeed grant the authority to raise and spend funds for the general welfare of the country. By your logic, there is no authority for the common defense of the people, just the states, and that's clearly not so.



Yes, I know--but thanks for stating the obvious. I specifically gave you the reason I cited that: to show the similarity in meaning between the words "health" and "welfare".

ETA: But most impotantly, re-read DDWW's post that I was responding to. I think you're trying to make it out that I'm saying something more than I am. I'm merely claiming that DDWW's rationale is wrong.

No. The OP asked why does the American people believe that. Common defense has a meaning to people (Federal tanks, troops, guns), The Constitution provides for a Federal Army and Navy. General Welfare does not mean Federal health care reform, or Federal everyone must have a home (shelter), must have food, a car, etc.

We can agree to disagree.

DD (sorry, my spell checker is off)WW

 

[Thunder]

supporting universal health-care, is VERY pro-life.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I think that no one would question the US' reason for going into Afghanistan.

The Iraq war became unpopular because large stocks of WMD were not immediately found. There were plenty of questionable things found, but no slam dunk. The US had put up with policing Iraq while Saddam thumbed his nose at the US for about 12 years. I still agree with freeing Iraq from Saddam, but I think it should have been justified differently.

Now that being said, I think that regardless of what the CBO says, this health care bill is going to end up costing way, way more than both the Gulf war and the Iraq war combined.

Just watch all the pork that gets tacked onto this health care legislative turd of a bill, it will be astounding... even world record breaking.

I was happy with my health care insurance, but now everything is going to cost me more. That is this USA person's opinion, your mileage may vary

 

[Ziggurat]

Remember that the general welfare clause is in exact parallel to "the common defense". DDWW said

I don't care what DDWW said, I care about what the constitution says. And the constitution's use of "general welfare of the United States" does not mean the general welfare of citizens.

ETA: But most impotantly, re-read DDWW's post that I was responding to. I think you're trying to make it out that I'm saying something more than I am. I'm merely claiming that DDWW's rationale is wrong.

That may be true. But it doesn't mean that the current bill is constitutional. Given past precedent, there doesn't appear to be much at all to constrain Congress's ability to spend money on pretty much whatever it wants to. But the health insurance mandate is unprecedented, and I don't think it can be justified by the general welfare clause.

 

[DC]

Switzerland's priorities:

1- Mind their own business
2- Learn to write in English properly.

1 - this is a Forum, a place to discuss. this is a place to NOT mind your own business.

2 - You was one of those that kept pointing out that my english was to good sometimes, so good even that you accused me of beeing a sockpuppet from some UK guy.......

 

[DC]

Because you're looking at it wrong?

yes i think your right.

Ya, there was no outrage over Iraq. It wasn't like hundreds of thousands marched in protest on almost a daily basis or anything. Its not like it cost the Republicans the last 2 election cycles or anything.

yeah i didnt count those huge protest as protests against the money spend on the wars, just against the wars.
which was very stupid of me

You hear that from far right Republicans. They happen to have very loud bullhorns. One of the main issues Obama won the 2008 election on was healthcare. One of the main reasons his poll numbers slipped was the perception that he wasn't moving fast enough on that and other issues

Do you really think there would be this much talk about it if it weren't a major concern for a huge number of Americans?

you are propably right

Because one of the values of the "American Way" is self reliance (whether or not this is actually practiced is another discussion). We're taught early on to be proud and not to accept help from the government except in times of emergency.

i think that goes for most people, that has to do with pride not with nationality. But having bad health and no money is a huge emergency in my eyes.

 

[DC]

Did you trust Saddam Hussein to keep his hands of WMD? Did you trust Saddam to never aid or abet a terrorist organization? Despite being a repeat offender of both of those things? Did you trust Uday Hussein not do those things when he took power?

no trust needed, the experts KNEW he didnt have WMD's

and i trusted Saddam alot lot more than i trust that North Korean Bastard and he is alot lot closer to WMD's but somehow that isnt such a danger.....

but any way it wasnt about the wars beeing wrong or not.

 

[DC]

What about those of us who don't think the current bill is UHC?

why is it not UHC? i thought when it is mandated then its is Universal.

 

[WildCat]

While I agree that the clause doesn't grant authority to do anything in the name of general welfare, it does indeed grant the authority to raise and spend funds for the general welfare of the country. By your logic, there is no authority for the common defense of the people, just the states, and that's clearly not so.

Just as surely as someone will win the lottery despite the extreme odds, sometimes I agree 100% with one of Joe's posts.

Good point Joe!

 

[WildCat]

General Welfare does not mean Federal health care reform, or Federal everyone must have a home (shelter), must have food, a car, etc.

So what does it mean? Anything at all? They just threw that in there?

eta: and nobody is saying the federal government must do these things, only that they can and should because letting curable people die at the hospital door seems morally reprehensible.

 

[Thunder]

General Welfare can mean whatever you want it to mean.

it can mean health-care, education, housing, food, child-care, etc.

perhaps our Founding Fathers were vague for a reason.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

General Welfare does not mean Federal health care reform, or Federal everyone must have a home (shelter), must have food, a car, etc.

So what does it mean? Anything at all? They just threw that in there?

Exactly.

And conversely, if the "general welfare" clause doesn't apply to healthcare, then how can you claim "the common defense" applies to a federal military?

The clauses are exactly parallel in the two places they both occur.

For purposes of the healthcare reform signed into law yesterday, the authority comes from the commerce clause and the modern interpretation thereof (which gives Congress the authority to regulate all economic activity--including their authority to make laws banning growing pot for personal medical use and for banning partial-birth abortions). (Not my own notion--source.)

But, if you wanted to make a parallel to military spending, a tax-revenue based single payer federal UHC system (not like the bill signed into law yesterday) would be in Congress' authority by the GW clause. The General Welfare clause has been interpreted early on as the power of Congress to raise money for the good of the country.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just as surely as someone will win the lottery despite the extreme odds, sometimes I agree 100% with one of Joe's posts.

Good point Joe!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't care what DDWW said, I care about what the constitution says. And the constitution's use of "general welfare of the United States" does not mean the general welfare of citizens.

My reply was in a specific context. DDWW claimed that what separated military spending and healthcare spending was the mention "front and center" of the "common defense".

So if you don't care what the context of the conversation is, you don't mind misreading what I have been saying.

But it doesn't mean that the current bill is constitutional. Given past precedent, there doesn't appear to be much at all to constrain Congress's ability to spend money on pretty much whatever it wants to. But the health insurance mandate is unprecedented, and I don't think it can be justified by the general welfare clause.

I never claimed that the current healthcare bill is justified by the GW clause. This thread is not about the current healthcare bill, but a broader question. (See my post above.) The bill signed into law yesterday falls under Congress authority by the Commerce Clause.

A bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President is assumed constitutional. The burden is on those who want to challenge it to make a case that it is unconstitutional. (This is similar to the presumption of innocence of someone accused of a crime.) So it is constitutional unless or until the SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional.

You say the individual mandate is unprecedented, but that doesn't mean anything. So too were federal laws against growing marijuana or federal laws against partial birth abortion. If you throw out all but the strictest construction of the Commerce Clause, you will have to undo a heckuva lot of federal legislation and overturn a good 50 plus years of case law.

 

[DDWW]

General Welfare can mean whatever you want it to mean.

it can mean health-care, education, housing, food, child-care, etc.

perhaps our Founding Fathers were vague for a reason.

If there were no Ninth and Tenth Amendments I would agree with you. But there is, so I don’t. The Founding fathers were not vague when they put in the limits of the 9th & 10th.


DDWW