let me guess, you were a product of a large public school...
The Constitution isn't a "guideline" - it's a RULE BOOK. It puts a cage around the Federal gov't.
Seriously, I don't know how some of you people even graduated highschool... sad really...
Requiring Car insurance is unconstitutional.
Women voting is unconstitutional.
Civil rights act is unconstitutional.
Healthcare isn't.
The constitution stands as a living document, it's suppose to be a guideline. Progress is a bitch ain't it?
Requiring Car insurance is unconstitutional.
Women voting is unconstitutional.
Civil rights act is unconstitutional.
Healthcare isn't.
The constitution stands as a living document, it's suppose to be a guideline. Progress is a bitch ain't it?
If that was the case why did the federal government have to amend the Constitution to implement prohibition and amend it again to eliminate prohibition?
Couldn't the federal government simply say that alcohol is bad and it is in the "general welfare" of the United States as its justification?
let me guess, you were a product of a large public school...
The Constitution isn't a "guideline" - it's a RULE BOOK. It puts a cage around the Federal gov't.
Seriously, I don't know how some of you people even graduated highschool... sad really...
When the Constitution was written the concept of welfare as we know it did not even exist.Look up welfare in the dictionary. Healthcare reform provides for the common defence and general welfare. F-22 Raptors provide for the common defence and general welfare. The interstate highway system provides for the common defence and general welfare.
Requiring Car insurance is unconstitutional.
Women voting is unconstitutional.
Civil rights act is unconstitutional.
Healthcare isn't.
The constitution stands as a living document, it's suppose to be a guideline. Progress is a bitch ain't it?
Is the Obama-Reid health reform plan unconstitutional?
The answer to that should be obvious: the Reid-Obama plan may be unwise, unsound, and unaffordable ... but it is unquestionably constitutional.
The federal government already requires every American to purchase health insurance. That's what Medicare does. The difference now is that everyone will be required to buy a private plan to cover them up to age 65 in addition to the government-run plan they are compelled to buy to cover them after 65.
I dont hear anyone in Congress suggesting that Medicare violates the Constitution. So how can the new plan be unconstitutional if the old plan is OK?
Since the challenges to Social Security were rejected by the Supreme Court in 1937, the courts have consistently held that the general welfare clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to create social welfare plans based on compulsory contribution. (Helvering v. Davis is the most relevant case.)
...
DeMint's and Ensign's argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.
...
The Civil War finished off the theory for all practical political purposes. Since 1865, the doctrine of enumerated power has subsisted at the remote margins of American politics. Are Republicans proposing now to resurrect the constitutional theories of Roger Taney?
Which in turn should make state laws banning the Bill unconstitutional.
This.The existence of the public option may have saved the bill Constitutionally by giving me the option to participate in the government half of the program, but the lack of that program may be what dooms it in a court challenge.
Requiring Car insurance is unconstitutional.
Women voting is unconstitutional.
Civil rights act is unconstitutional.
Healthcare isn't.
The constitution stands as a living document, it's suppose to be a guideline. Progress is a bitch ain't it?
Article 1, section 8 lists the powers congress has.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
Where does it say they can do anything like a required universal healthcare plan? I dont see anything even remotely close to healthcare in their powers, so according to the 10th amendment, shouldnt that decision be left up to individual states?
Granted I know it passed, but I just cant wrap my head around this constitutional question.
Before someone claims "welfare!!" in this line:
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
remember, welfare back then did NOT mean what it does now, and in that sentence its referring to the safety of the nation.
Anyway, I'd like to hear what others think.
No trolling :awe:
Medicare is a government program thus forcing me to buy into it is forcing me to buy into a government program.
This bill forces me to buy into a private program that is run by private companies and for private profit.
Really??Ever tried looking up welfare in a dictionary? Happiness/comfort/freedom from want..state which looks after the health and well-being of its citizens. Still not enough said? Nation; people of a particular country. You ARE an ignorant ass, the words means the same now as it did then. :'( me a river!
Really??
The concept of welfare as we know it did NOT exist when the Constitution was written.
Welfare as we know it today came into existence in the 1883 in Germany. It didn't come into existence in the US until the 1930s.
If you look up the word in a revolutionary dictionary you will find the following meaning: "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being." or something similar.
Really??
The concept of welfare as we know it did NOT exist when the Constitution was written.
Welfare as we know it today came into existence in the 1883 in Germany. It didn't come into existence in the US until the 1930s.
If you look up the word in a revolutionary dictionary you will find the following meaning: "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being." or something similar.
Personal income tax was something our founders NEVER wanted to see in this country
ProfJohn,
The amount of concepts that didn't exist when the Constitution was written is utterly staggering. The very idea of modern medicine didn't exist, they didn't know what germs were. The idea of a secret terrorist organization being able to cripple a country overnight didn't exist either. The idea that we could do what we are doing this very moment was laughable.
I'm not saying your argument is without merit, but I feel the foundation of your argument is lacking.
Ever tried looking up welfare in a dictionary? Happiness/comfort/freedom from want..state which looks after the health and well-being of its citizens. Still not enough said? Nation; people of a particular country. You ARE an ignorant ass, the words means the same now as it did then. :'( me a river!
So what did "man"/"men" mean in 1787?Thanks for the name calling, you piece of shit.
Have you ever looked up welfare in a dictionary made in 1787? I bet you have not.
Hint: It meant something totally different than the meaning bleeding hearts give it today.
So what did "man"/"men" mean in 1787?
It doesn't matter what you "feel". The FACT is, "welfare" in the Constitution and other founding documents doesn't not mean "welfare" as we know it today. It's absolute fact regardless of how you "feel".