healthcare - is it constitutional

[ponderingturtle]

Keep your pants on and just wait and see people.

In any case, I'm a bit disturbed by people on a skeptic site so seemingly joyous that a government can just do something this massive without constitutional amendments.

What is so massively different about it? Other than funding an individual states program and not others?

Medicare would seem to have been a much more massive thing, and no one is seriously questioning it being constitutional.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In any case, I'm a bit disturbed by people on a skeptic site so seemingly joyous that a government can just do something this massive without constitutional amendments.

Making healthcare accessible to millions who don't have it (or only limited access)?

And besides, I don't think most of us arguing that there's no sound argument that the bill is unconstitutional are exactly joyous. (Wherever did you get that from?) Even those of us who support the thing do so only reluctantly at best.

 

[mhaze]

Keep your pants on and just wait and see people.

In any case, I'm a bit disturbed by people on a skeptic site so seemingly joyous that a government can just do something this massive without constitutional amendments.

That the nature of the problem goes over their heads is comprehensible, as issues go, it is the size of a flea, compared to many complexities, and fleas jump no higher than six inches, giving a measure of the level of stature of those of whom we speak, if any was needed.

 

[Beerina]

What is so massively different about it? Other than funding an individual states program and not others?

That it's "only" this is due to the tireless efforts of those opposed to it. Is this the pro side's last defense? That there's not much left after the huge resistance, so just give up and accept it?

I don't know if I should sigh or throw a party.

Medicare would seem to have been a much more massive thing, and no one is seriously questioning it being constitutional.

Plenty did at the time, and still do. But touching it is the charged third rail that no politician will touch. Working as intended, I guess, much like Social Security.

That people now wwwwwwwant it doesn't mean it's proper, nor that it could have been done without amendment. Keep in mind what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If "your side", whatever it is, can make an end-run around the Constitution by using a ridiculous over-extension of a clause here or there, so can the other guy. It will come back to bite you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That it's "only" this is due to the tireless efforts of those opposed to it. Is this the pro side's last defense? That there's not much left after the huge resistance, so just give up and accept it?

I don't know if I should sigh or throw a party.





Plenty did at the time, and still do. But touching it is the charged third rail that no politician will touch. Working as intended, I guess, much like Social Security.

That people now wwwwwwwant it doesn't mean it's proper, nor that it could have been done without amendment. Keep in mind what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If "your side", whatever it is, can make an end-run around the Constitution by using a ridiculous over-extension of a clause here or there, so can the other guy. It will come back to bite you.

So why haven't legal challanges from those such as yourself gotten anywhere? You should challange the constitutionality of medicare, if you win you would gut this legislation.

 

[drkitten]

That people now wwwwwwwant it doesn't mean it's proper, nor that it could have been done without amendment. Keep in mind what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If "your side", whatever it is, can make an end-run around the Constitution by using a ridiculous over-extension of a clause here or there, so can the other guy. It will come back to bite you.

The problem with that is that strict constructionism of the sort you propose is historically confined to the Republican party (at least in modern times). Typically "my side" doesn't care about an end run around the constitution to provide a service in support of the general welfare. In fact, recently the Republicans have been working both to narrow the enumerate powers and the authority of things like the Bill of Rights (i.e. trying to argue that "constitutional rights" apply only to citizens).

So your threat is that if you let the government make the world a better place by supporting and improving the general welfare, I'll establish the precedent that the government will later be able to make the world a better place? That you'll push to provide me greater freedom, greater security, and greater overall happiness whether I want it or not?

I can live with that particular Faustian bargain.

 

[tyr_13]

Keep your pants on and just wait and see people.

In any case, I'm a bit disturbed by people on a skeptic site so seemingly joyous that a government can just do something this massive without constitutional amendments.

If it is already constitutionally sound, why would skeptics believe it should need an amendment? It being massive isn't a valid argument that it's unconstitutional.