Health Care Bill Constitutionality?

Bob Blaylock said:
The framers intended the federal government to be very limited, and they included wording in the Constitution to this effect. I don't see how there can possibly be any argument that as far as the intended meaning of the Constitution is concerned, that the expansion of the federal government into the bloated, uncontrollable mess that it has now become is clearly a horrendous violation of the intended meaning of the Constitution. That various courts and politicians have found ways to twist and pervert the literal meaning of the words in the Constitution in order to allow these violations does nothing to address the blatant discrepancy between what has been done, and what the Constitution was clearly intended to allow.
Click to expand...

So against the FBI, CIA and all that. We need the Pinkertons back.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The framers intended the federal government to be very limited, and they included wording in the Constitution to this effect.
Click to expand...

The framers are dead. REALLY dead. Their opinions, while interesting, aren't binding. The world has moved on.

If the framers intended as you say, perhaps they shouldn't have written the constitution so vaguely. For example, what the hell is the "general welfare"? (To be fair, it is entirely possible they kept it vague to change with the times.)
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
The framers are dead. REALLY dead. Their opinions, while interesting, aren't important. The world has moved on.

If the framers intended as you say, perhaps they shouldn't have written the constitution so vaguely. For example, what the hell is the "general welfare"? (To be fair, it is entirely possible they kept it vague to change with the times.)
Click to expand...

I'd actually argue that their first attempt at a "very limited" government failed MISERABLY. The Articles of Confederation were horrid, and that's why we tossed them after less than a decade.

What we got instead was the US Constitution, which most assuredly does NOT advocate a "very limited" central government.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The framers intended the federal government to be very limited, and they included wording in the Constitution to this effect.
Click to expand...

That's simply untrue. The framers wanted the Constitution to be open-ended while it protected basic human rights (those Lockian natural rights) by limiting the powers of government.

The last clause of Article 1 Section 8 is the famous "necessary and proper" clause, which contradicts your statement:

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.
Click to expand...
---------

Speaking of "states' rights", I'm quite sure the framers of the Constitution did not envision the states keeping their own "National Guards". The last clause of Article 1 Section 10 is:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Click to expand...

For that matter, I don't think they foresaw a standing military at the national level either. (The checks and balances of war-making seems to anticipate the President having to go to Congress for a declaration of war and for appropriating funds to support a pro tem military for that war.) But luckily [ETA: or not, depending on your opinion, I suppose] the framers were foresightful enough to make pretty wide changes in interpretation possible.
 
Last edited:
After reading this I agree that the Health Care bill is constitutional.

However, that does not allay my concerns about cost versus benefit of this bill, but that's for another thread.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
That's simply untrue. The framers wanted the Constitution to be open-ended while it protected basic human rights (those Lockian natural rights) by limiting the powers of government.

The last clause of Article 1 Section 8 is the famous "necessary and proper" clause, which contradicts your statement ...
Click to expand...
Actually, no it doesn't. On careful examination of that clause of Article 1 Section 8 according to the strict meaning assigned to it by the people who drafted it it doesn't really mean anything at all.

I'll start a thread about this after I've had a nice nap. Dr A is sleepy.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Actually, no it doesn't. On careful examination of that clause of Article 1 Section 8 according to the strict meaning assigned to it by the people who drafted it it doesn't really mean anything at all.
Click to expand...

They just put it in there to fill out the meter?

I don't believe it, especially given the legislative history (including the rejection of the Articles of Confederation).

Here's what Madison had to say about it:

Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more compleatly invulnerable. Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.
Click to expand...

Read the entire link.

Madison contemplates alternatives, including copying the relevant section of the Articles of Confederation, in which case, " the new Congress would be continually exposed as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term 'expressly' with so much rigour as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction."

He also considers a strict enumeration of powers, and rejects it since they would have to apply " not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce".

He also considers remaining silent on the issue. In that case, he says, whenever it was necessary, the government would surely find a way to authorize the powers it needed, and all the criticisms of the "necessary and proper" clause would still remain, but there would be nothing we could use to question the government's asserting more power than is proper.

At any rate, it is clear that to the people who drafted it and voted on it, the clause was not devoid of meaning. It was debated at some length, and deemed important enough to keep in.
 
peptoabysmal said:
After reading this I agree that the Health Care bill is constitutional. ....
Click to expand...
No, you don't. You have an opinion, that the 1992/1993 bill (Hillary Health Care) was constitutional, based on an advocacy piece from that administration.

Does this transfer to an educated opinion on the current bill(s)?

Nope.
 
KingMerv00 said:
(Addressing the crowd.)

What is your legal theory?

Whenever you're ready.

No rush.

Take your time.
Click to expand...

I think it's idealism, honestly. Those of us who still believe that the federal government should be limited in its powers, as it was for the first one hundred and fifty years, haven't faced the reality of the precedents set by Supreme Court decisions during the Great Depression. The commerce clause, as it is now widely interpreted, allows Congress over any activity so long as it has an economic impact. That's not how it always was, nor is it how the framers intended it to be. But it is what it is.
 
peptoabysmal said:
After reading this I agree that the Health Care bill is constitutional.
Click to expand...

LOL! The fact that this this came from the Reno and Hubble Department of Justice should be more than enough reason to give you pause as to the validity of it's arguments. You see, the Clinton DOJ under Janet Reno and Web Hubbell were more than willing to ignore the law and Constitution when it suited the agenda of their masters and their political party.

By the way ... know who is Attorney General under Obama? Another member of that Clinton DOJ.
 
BeAChooser said:
LOL! The fact that this this came from the Reno and Hubble Department of Justice should be more than enough reason to give you pause as to the validity of it's arguments. You see, the Clinton DOJ under Janet Reno and Web Hubbell were more than willing to ignore the law and Constitution when it suited the agenda of their masters and their political party.

By the way ... know who is Attorney General under Obama? Another member of that Clinton DOJ.
Click to expand...

Please state you ****ing legal theory.
 
KingMerv00 said:
The framers are dead. REALLY dead. Their opinions, while interesting, aren't binding. The world has moved on.

If the framers intended as you say, perhaps they shouldn't have written the constitution so vaguely. For example, what the hell is the "general welfare"? (To be fair, it is entirely possible they kept it vague to change with the times.)
Click to expand...

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.

I'm rereading Cant and Voltaire right now, and they have a lot of valid thoughts. I don't think that my thought should ever be limited to that however.
 
peptoabysmal said:
After reading this I agree that the Health Care bill is constitutional.

However, that does not allay my concerns about cost versus benefit of this bill, but that's for another thread.
Click to expand...

Fair assessment. One can be against it without calling it unconstitutional.
 
BeAChooser said:
LOL! The fact that this this came from the Reno and Hubble Department of Justice should be more than enough reason to give you pause as to the validity of it's arguments. You see, the Clinton DOJ under Janet Reno and Web Hubbell were more than willing to ignore the law and Constitution when it suited the agenda of their masters and their political party.
Click to expand...
I believe this is, at best, a "circumstantial ad hominem" argument.
  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
  3. Therefore claim X is false.

By the way ... know who is Attorney General under Obama? Another member of that Clinton DOJ.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have said "I agree that the health care bill will be adjudicated as fitting within the Constitution." I personally am against the health care bill for reasons other than the Constitution.

From the link I provided:
The most fundamental constitutional challenge to national health care reform is that it lies beyond the power of Congress and the President to enact. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has long since rejected the crabbed view of national legislative authority that necessarily lies behind such a challenge.

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) Noting that "there has long been recognition of the authority of Congress to obtain ... social, health or economic advantages from the exercise of constitutional powers, (3) the Court concluded that Congress's authority over "commerce among the several States" empowers the national government to address all activity, "whatever its nature ... if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. (4) Upholding Congress's power to regulate the sale and distribution of coal because of the impact of that industry on American economic and social life, the Court stated:

If the strategic character of this industry in our economy and the chaotic conditions which have prevailed in it do not justify legislation, it is difficult to imagine what would. To invalidate this Act we would have to deny the existence of power on the part of Congress under the commerce clause to deal directly and specifically with those forces which in its judgment should not be permitted to dislocate an important segment of our economy and to disrupt and burden interstate channels of commerce . . . . Congress under the commerce clause is not impotent to deal with what it may consider to be dire consequences of laissez-faire.(5)

The American health care industry is one of the largest and fastest growing segments of the American economy, and it has the most direct and crucial impact on the lives of all Americans. Spiralling health care costs and inequities in the provision of health care services have an immediate and massive effect on the national economy and thus upon interstate commerce. As a result Congress unquestionably possesses the power "to deal directly and specifically" with health care in order to obtain "social, health [and] economic advantages" for the American people.
Click to expand...
Regardless who wrote this, I think it is a valid argument, referencing cases for precedent, as to why the health care bill will be accepted as Constitutional.

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?... yes.

I don't really care who is Attorney General. Wouldn't the final say of constitutionality be on the Supreme Court, providing it gets that far?
 
Dr Adequate said:
After my nap.
Click to expand...

Brrrrrrrrring! (That was an alarm clock.)

I'm really curious what evidence you have that the necessary and proper clause was meaningless to the framers even though I showed that it was debated at some length and described Madison's support of it.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Brrrrrrrrring! (That was an alarm clock.)

I'm really curious what evidence you have that the necessary and proper clause was meaningless to the framers even though I showed that it was debated at some length and described Madison's support of it.
Click to expand...

I don't he'll be getting back to you. He's been banned for his actions in a different thread.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I don't he'll be getting back to you. He's been banned for his actions in a different thread.
Click to expand...

Bummer.

Now I'm dying of curiosity what he meant by that.

It seems to me pretty obvious that the clause was very important and meaningful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom