Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Quite true, but much of the language in the Constitution is vague at best...hence the debate between those who believe in strict adherence to the Constitution versus those who believe the language is open to interpretation. Our nation fought a Civil War over this very debate in terms of the balance between States' rights versus the Federal government, a disagreement that nearly derailed the Constitutional Convention to begin with.You can interpret the Constitution or the Founders' intent however you want, but only what is written in the Constitution is the governing document of the United States, not opinions written by its authors elsewhere. If there was agreement on those opinions and that they were important, they would have been in the Constitution itself and ratified. You don't get to claim something is unconstitutional unless it violates the actual Constitution, not Madison's papers or Federalist papers, etc. Plus you completely dodged why Medicare hasn't been overturned as unconstitutional by the courts which are tasked with interpreting the Constitution if your case is so strong.
Many Constitutional scholars reference the writings of Madison and others in entering the larger debate on Constitutional adherence.
As for Medicare, I am not aware of a challenge to this program, nor am I aware of a Supreme Court ruling that establishes it as precedence...but I don't think any court would touch such a popular concept with a ten foot pole...as others have said, you can make a case for Medicare, or any federal medical coverage effort, as an extension of societal welfare...the debate, as always, comes down to who will pay for such a program, and the choices afforded through it.
Similarly, just because the Federal government has the Constitutional right to exercise a certain power does not necessarily mean it will follow the best couse of action in doing so...Medicare, and Hillary's proposal, are perfect examples of big government bureaucratic solutions to problems better served by free markets.