Health Care Bill Constitutionality?

[Newtons Bit]

No thanks. I know it well enough. I just think I'm misunderstanding your position. You think the 14th amendment DOES incorporate the bill of rights then, yes?

It does. Or at least it does in a form. I think the specific language is "privileges and immunities". Which is incredibly vague and the definition of which has been modified over the past 150 years many times.

So ignore the clause you don't like because you think they are too vague?

Actually: use the clause based on the original meaning, not on what you can interpret it based on todays slightly different language. Otherwise, one should try to amend the constitution and let the electorate decide if the government should be granted that additional power.

This is, again, idealism. I'm well aware that it is not how the current system actually works.

 

[KingMerv00]

It does. Or at least it does in a form. I think the specific language is "privileges and immunities". Which is incredibly vague and the definition of which has been modified over the past 150 years many times.

So which "clear" definition of "privileges and immunities" do we use?

Actually: use the clause based on the original meaning, not on what you can interpret it based on todays slightly different language. Otherwise, one should try to amend the constitution and let the electorate decide if the government should be granted that additional power.

I think you are putting objectivism where there is none. The language is vague. If the drafters of the amendment wanted a specific outcome, they should have put in specific language. (i.e. "This amendment binds all states in the union to abide by the Bill of Rights.") They have to live with their own failure.

This is, again, idealism. I'm well aware that it is not how the current system actually works.

I'm clear on that. It is what you want, not what is.

You'd be surprised how many people don't understand that distinction.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So which "clear" definition of "privileges and immunities" do we use?

That's what the Supreme Court is for.

In all non-self-contradictory-seriousness, the writers of the 14th amendment had published what they said, in detail, the 14th amendment meant. Then the Supreme Court came along and basically used it to ensure that the racist and discriminatory laws weren't effected. It wasn't until a century later that the Supreme Court decided to interpret it in a way that the writers intended.

Language is hard. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.

I think you are putting objectivism where there is none. The language is vague. If the drafters of the amendment wanted a specific outcome, they should have put in specific language. (i.e. "This amendment binds all states in the union to abide by the Bill of Rights.") They have to live with their own failure.

See above.

I'm clear on that. It is what you want, not what is.

You'd be surprised how many people don't understand that distinction.

Idealism is fun, but it's ultimately a fantasy. I know that this isn't something that's going to change though we have perhaps reached the end of the creep. The Rehnquist court struck down the ridiculously justified "Gun-Free School Zone" in that it went too far in stating that inner-state commerce was somehow effected by guns in a school zone. I think the concern of the Court was that the inter-state commerce clause was being used to justify Federal takeover of local police matters. If the law stood, another law based on the same precedent could be used to end local and federal divisions in law enforcement jurisdictions.

Creep into areas like this is what I'm ultimately concerned with.

 

[KingMerv00]

That's what the Supreme Court is for.

Considering the composition of the court now, only half of it is useful though. (Which half is up to you. )

In all non-self-contradictory-seriousness, the writers of the 14th amendment had published what they said, in detail, the 14th amendment meant. Then the Supreme Court came along and basically used it to ensure that the racist and discriminatory laws weren't effected. It wasn't until a century later that the Supreme Court decided to interpret it in a way that the writers intended.

The writers' intent is something to consider but it isn't the end of the conversation. The people didn't vote on the writers' notes, they voted on the text of the amendment.

The writers left it ambiguous so the courts were left a lot of leeway. That will teach them to use firm language if they wanted a firm outcome.

Language is hard. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.

Try being a politician. Apparently, you get to write poorly worded documents, get them passed, and then say "What I really meant was..."

Idealism is fun, but it's ultimately a fantasy. I know that this isn't something that's going to change though we have perhaps reached the end of the creep. The Rehnquist court struck down the ridiculously justified "Gun-Free School Zone" in that it went too far in stating that inner-state commerce was somehow effected by guns in a school zone. I think the concern of the Court was that the inter-state commerce clause was being used to justify Federal takeover of local police matters. If the law stood, another law based on the same precedent could be used to end local and federal divisions in law enforcement jurisdictions.

Creep into areas like this is what I'm ultimately concerned with.

We share a similar concern. I mentioned my fears over the commerce clause earlier in the thread.

Legality aside, do you really think the country would be better off if we left fundamental rights up to the individual states?

 

[tyr_13]

Banning guns?

Banning religions?

Banning some talk radio hosts?

Etc. Etc. Etc.

All could be justified as relating to the general welfare.

All could be attempted to be justified as being related to the general welfare. Providing basic medical care is so clearly in the general welfare that it's difficult to come up with a better example and yet this Congress, with all it's super majority, can hardly pass any reforms to provide for it better. Yet you believe that future Congresses and courts, could ban religion?

There is a good reason for those checks and balances, and all, and not ALL of them are the Constitution itself. Some bad laws are not passed not because they are unconstitutional, but because they are bad.

 

[DDWW]

No, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that providing for the general welfare is a power specifically delegated to the United States.

And they're right. Article I, clause 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

I disagree on the interpertation; They (the Founders) were great wordsmiths. They wrote general welfare of the Untied States....not general welfare of the People. There is a big difference.

DDWW

 

[Newtons Bit]

Legality aside, do you really think the country would be better off if we left fundamental rights up to the individual states?

Definitely not. History shows us that bigots can get together and reason their way into creating slaves out of another race. There needs to be a big stick preventing that sort of behavior.

 

[mhaze]

I disagree on the interpertation; They (the Founders) were great wordsmiths. They wrote general welfare of the Untied States....not general welfare of the People. There is a big difference.

DDWW

That difference is that the United States is specifically made up of the States, not the people?

 

[Cleon]

That difference is that the United States is specifically made up of the States, not the people?

"We the States, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

No, wait, something about that just doesn't seem right...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I disagree on the interpertation; They (the Founders) were great wordsmiths. They wrote general welfare of the Untied States....not general welfare of the People. There is a big difference.

Can you elaborate?

What is something that is the general welfare of the United States that is not the general welfare of the people? (And please note, that the same clause specified the "common defence" as if it were a distinct thing.)