Healthcare....again

[add]

[img]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d160/wisper3/youpay.jpg[/img]

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1926502' date='Jul 21 2009, 11:27 AM'][/quote]
Two words: Field. Day.

I was saying so in jest. Glad you laughed about it.

[quote name='apparently' post='1931492' date='Jul 25 2009, 09:27 AM'][img]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d160/wisper3/youpay.jpg[/img][/quote]
I guess I forgot about that aspect... Remind me to stick it to the man whenever I can... except, I guess I can be jailed for sticking it to the man (ie protesting/praying in front of an abortion clinic)

[add]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1931832' date='Jul 25 2009, 06:49 PM']I guess I forgot about that aspect... Remind me to stick it to the man whenever I can... except, I guess I can be jailed for sticking it to the man (ie protesting/praying in front of an abortion clinic)[/quote]

the state of Texas wants out of the obamacare.
Sacred Music Man does your counties universal health care pay for abortions?

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1929007' date='Jul 22 2009, 10:29 PM']That's been exactly my point all along, and something Madison was getting at in the quotes. He was basically saying that it would be utterly pointless to enumerate those powers to Congress if the general welfare clause was granted it the authority to do anything it saw fit to be in the general welfare. Because if that were the case, than there would be no use at all for the enumerated powers.[/quote]


And as interesting as Madison's writtings are, his personal political philosophy was not ratified by the states.




[quote]You're right, if the Congress can't do it, the tenth amendment explicitly states that it is left up to states to decide for themselves. That's why issues like abortion, gay marriage and others should all be left to the states to decide, seeing that the Constitution says nothing about them. And whatever a state decides on the issue, as long as it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights and Article 1, Section 10 (which limits what the states can do), becomes law in the state. Although that's how it was original meant to be, but we've come far from the original meaning of the Constitution and the Federal Government has usurped states' rights a number of times.[/quote]


No.

That is not how it was originally intended to be. If you look at the case law it is very clear that originally the Bill of Rights were protections against the federal government. States could, and did, pass laws which violated individuals Bill of Rights protections. The courts ruled that as it was not the federal government the protections did not apply. In fact the text of the constitution makes it clear that they were originally relevent only to the federal government. The First Ammendment says "Congress shall make no law..." not "No government within the federal system of the United States".

Is the Air Force Constitutional?

I see permission given for Congress to establish a Navy and Army, but nothing about an Air Force.

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1926151' date='Jul 21 2009, 12:01 AM']That medical care issue is iffy, but I believe that it would fall under military spending, seeing that the soldiers were injured while in defense of the country. It would be no different than paying for a medic's services on the field of battle, which is obviously a component of defense spending.[/quote]

Patching up a wounded soldier so he can go back an fight is obviously part of defense spending. I don't see how the veterans care my grandfathers have available to them is pursuant to the defense of the nation.

[quote]And secondly, what exactly do 13 and 14 have to do with what's being discussed here?[/quote]

They substantially expand congressional authority.




[quote]Again, I didn't say anything about the Constitution, just the general welfare clause.[/quote]

The general welfare clause is not part of the constitution?

[quote]So what you said earlier was mistaken. And it is obviously the case that they are the sole arbiters of what is in the general welfare seeing that are the ones that spend the money.[/quote]

They are the sole arbiters of what they believe in in the general welfare. The Executive and Judicial Branch also have some say regarding what the constitutional precedent actually permits.

[quote]This can be seen in the fact that Congress has now spent taxpayer dollars on pretty much anything you can think of, barring flat out paying people's bills for them. The stimulus bill and other pork spending proves this.[/quote]


Pork Barrel spending like the F22?

You want to deal in these generic categories. The F22 is both pork barrel spending and defense spending. There are court imposed limits on spending is constitutional. Perhaps you don't like it but the courts, whole actual duty it is to determine what legislation is and is not constitutional, seem to disagree.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='apparently' post='1932004' date='Jul 25 2009, 08:16 PM']the state of Texas wants out of the obamacare.
Sacred Music Man does your counties universal health care pay for abortions?[/quote]
Probably. I can't remember

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932032' date='Jul 25 2009, 08:45 PM']And as interesting as Madison's writtings are, his personal political philosophy was not ratified by the states.


No.

That is not how it was originally intended to be. If you look at the case law it is very clear that originally the Bill of Rights were protections against the federal government. States could, and did, pass laws which violated individuals Bill of Rights protections. The courts ruled that as it was not the federal government the protections did not apply. In fact the text of the constitution makes it clear that they were originally relevent only to the federal government. The First Ammendment says "Congress shall make no law..." not "No government within the federal system of the United States".[/quote]

So you're going to throw everything Madison said about the general welfare clause out the window?? It doesn't matter at all to you?? I'm sorry, but to not take into consideration the words of James Madison, who mind you is considered the Father of the Constitution, is absolutely stunning to me.


And no, you're the one that is wrong about the Bill of Rights and its application to the states. Most of the first ten amendments, specifically those having to do with personal liberty, were applied to the states through the doctrine of Incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So to say that they don't apply to the states is false.

Lastly, I have a question for you: if like you say, the commerce clause grants Congress the power to spend, what then limits it from perhaps paying my bills, or paying everybody's income in the U.S. through borrowing or engaging in a number of other preposterous things that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in (monetarily that is)?

Edited July 26, 2009 by reelguy227

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932252' date='Jul 26 2009, 12:16 AM']So you're going to throw everything Madison said about the general welfare clause out the window?? It doesn't matter at all to you?? I'm sorry, but to not take into consideration the words of James Madison, who mind you is considered the Father of the Constitution, is absolutely stunning to me.[/quote]

He is considered it. He did not seem to like the title as he favored a government structured in a manner much more analgous to the current British government. I think Madison is very important as a figure to study and have never said otherwise. I did point out that it is the text of the constitution which was ratified by the American people and not Mr. Madison's personal political philosophy.


[quote]And no, you're the one that is wrong about the Bill of Rights and its application to the states. Most of the first ten amendments, specifically those having to do with personal liberty, were applied to the states through the doctrine of Incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So to say that they don't apply to the states is false.[/quote]

Yes. And the 14th Ammendment, along with the other "Civil War Ammendments" were passed almost a century after to Constitution was ratified. You were discussing the origional vision of the framers. I made it clear in the post you are responding to that I was speaking of the origional view of the constitution. And Prior to the Civil War, as the case law shows, the Bill of Rights were not protections from state laws.

[quote]Lastly, I have a question for you: if like you say, the commerce clause grants Congress the power to spend, what then limits it from perhaps paying my bills, or paying everybody's income in the U.S. through borrowing or engaging in a number of other preposterous things that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in (monetarily that is)?[/quote]


What?

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932297' date='Jul 26 2009, 02:31 AM']He is considered it. He did not seem to like the title as he favored a government structured in a manner much more analgous to the current British government. I think Madison is very important as a figure to study and have never said otherwise. I did point out that it is the text of the constitution which was ratified by the American people and not Mr. Madison's personal political philosophy.[/quote]

Just because the text was ratified by the people doesn't mean the enumerated powers section doesn't say what it clearly says. That section is pretty self explanatory.

And, even though Madison's original plan was rejected, he ultimately approved of and defended the final draft, which can be easily seen in his writings in the Federalist. Both in those articles and others, he was a strict constructionist, interpreting the Constitution as it was written and for the most part, never taking a single step beyond what the document plainly states (as did his ally Thomas Jefferson). It is because of this strict method of interpretation and the fact that he was instrumental in the document's passage that I believe his words carry more weight than other founding fathers on how the Constitution should be interpreted today. Specifically in regards to limits on the power of the Federal government and the rights of the states. After all, it was his initial Virginia Plan—though it was watered down—that laid the foundation for the separation of powers and checks and balances that serve as the basis for our Federal government. So with that said, one would think he would know what he was speaking of when concerning the General welfare clause and the like. That is why I quoted him.

My last question is pretty self explanatory. I'm basically saying that, if you say Congress has the ability to spend exorbitant amounts of money because of the commerce clause, than what stops them from engaging in out of control spending? What inhibits their spending if people like yourself take the Commerce clause, and others the General Welfare clause, to mean that Congress has near limitless spending Where do you draw the line??

Edited July 26, 2009 by reelguy227

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932301' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:02 AM']Just because the text was ratified by the people doesn't mean the enumerated powers section doesn't say what it clearly says.[/quote]

I suppose I also agree that the text says what it says

[quote]That section is pretty self explanatory.[/quote]

No, not really. Great legal scholars have been arguing over exactly what it permits for quite some time now.


[quote]And, even though Madison's original plan was rejected, he ultimately approved of and defended the final draft, which can be easily seen in his articles in the Federalist. Both in those articles and others, most of the time he was a strict constructionist, interpreting the Constitution as it was written and for the most part, didn't take a single step beyond what the document plainly said (as did his ally Thomas Jefferson). It is because of this strict method of interpretation and the fact that he was instrumental in the document's passage that I believe his words carry more weight than other founding fathers on how the Constitution should be interpreted today. Specifically in regards to limits on the power federal government and the rights of the states. After all, it was his initial Virginia Plan—though it was watered down—that laid the foundation for the separation of powers and checks and balances that serve as the basis for our Federal government. So with that said, one would think he would know what he was speaking of when concerning the General welfare clause and the like. That is why I quoted him.[/quote]

I understand why you quoted him. And I agree that if you want an understanding of what one major Framer viewed as the propper role and function of government two and a half centuries ago Madison would be a good source.

[quote]My last question is pretty self explanatory. I'm basically saying that, if you say Congress has the ability to spend exorbitant amounts of money because of the commerce clause, than what stops them from engaging in out of control spending? What inhibits their spending if people like yourself take the Commerce clause, and others the General Welfare clause, to mean that Congress has near limitless spending Where do you draw the line??[/quote]

And I will ask what again because I still do not fully understand your question. In the first half you seem to be asking about things stopping congress from spending exorbitant ammounts of money. This is a silly question. The Constitution has not provisions on the ammount congress can spend on licit projects. Your interpretation doesn't prevent them from spending exorbitant sums on the post office. The focal point of our dispute is the areas within which congress can spend money, not how much. After that I don't understand you. you just seem to cut yourself off after "near limitless spending".

[Hassan]

I'll ask you again. Is spending money on vetern medical coverage and an air force constitutional?

[reelguy227]

Ok, I worded it wrong. Where do you draw the line on what congress can spend the money of its constituents on?? Not on how much it can spend, my apologies. What is to prevent it from, say, paying my bills?

No, veteran medical coverage is not constitutional in my eyes.

And as far as the air force goes, it was originally formulated under the Army. So in that respect, it is constitutional.

Edited July 26, 2009 by reelguy227

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932324' date='Jul 26 2009, 01:52 AM']Ok, I worded it wrong. Where do you draw the line on what congress can spend the money of its constituents on?? Not on how much it can spend, my apologies. What is to prevent it from, say, paying my bills?

No, veteran medical coverage is not constitutional in my eyes.

And as far as the air force goes, it was originally formulated under the Army. So in that respect, it is constitutional.[/quote]
The line should be drawn based on what the constituents want. That would fall under the power of the people.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932324' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:52 AM']Ok, I worded it wrong. Where do you draw the line on what congress can spend the money of its constituents on?? Not on how much it can spend, my apologies. What is to prevent it from, say, paying my bills?

No, veteran medical coverage is not constitutional in my eyes.

And as far as the air force goes, it was originally formulated under the Army. So in that respect, it is constitutional.[/quote]
I would say medical coverage for veterans and federal employees isn't guaranteed by the constitution, but offering such an employer to employee benefit isn't a violation of the constitution. The problem when people wave the healthcare plans of veterans and congressmen as examples of what the citizens deserve is that they are saying the federal government must provide an employee benefit as a right due to all citizens. If you want federal healthcare benefits, go work for Uncle Sam. I am sure the Chosen One has plenty of available spots for you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932301' date='Jul 26 2009, 02:02 AM']Just because the text was ratified by the people doesn't mean the enumerated powers section doesn't say what it clearly says. That section is pretty self explanatory.

And, even though Madison's original plan was rejected, he ultimately approved of and defended the final draft, which can be easily seen in his writings in the Federalist. Both in those articles and others, he was a strict constructionist, interpreting the Constitution as it was written and for the most part, never taking a single step beyond what the document plainly states (as did his ally Thomas Jefferson). It is because of this strict method of interpretation and the fact that he was instrumental in the document's passage that I believe his words carry more weight than other founding fathers on how the Constitution should be interpreted today. Specifically in regards to limits on the power of the Federal government and the rights of the states. After all, it was his initial Virginia Plan—though it was watered down—that laid the foundation for the separation of powers and checks and balances that serve as the basis for our Federal government. So with that said, one would think he would know what he was speaking of when concerning the General welfare clause and the like. That is why I quoted him.

My last question is pretty self explanatory. I'm basically saying that, if you say Congress has the ability to spend exorbitant amounts of money because of the commerce clause, than what stops them from engaging in out of control spending? What inhibits their spending if people like yourself take the Commerce clause, and others the General Welfare clause, to mean that Congress has near limitless spending Where do you draw the line??[/quote]

it seems like the 'do' v. 'spend' distinction i drew best serves teh general welfare clause vis a vis the enumerated powers.
we've established that the spending clause isn't intricately connected to the enumerated powers per a textual reading-- they're indpendant ideas.
the only way you could connect them, is by the policy observation of 'essentially limitless power' and/or histiroical arguments. these both though, even if true, contravene the textual reading of spending and enumeration clauses are indpendant.


cause ya can't deny, even if you use those two considerations above, that the text will be butchered, at least to some extent. strict constructionalism per limiting what congress can do, yes--- strict per a textual reading, no. there's always a give and take even with conservative principels, textually. just as there are per principles like "defer to the states" v. 'judicial activism' (which reading into it by history and policy does).
there's nothing 'clear' about limit congreses spending power so fiercely. it's almost just a polar end of what could be done. on the one end limitless, on the other end, very limited. neither are clearly what should be done.

i known this idea of 'do' v. 'spend' is merely a creation of myself. but, it's at least more faithful to the text. but at least it does strike a middle ground that isn't present when you go to the extremes-- both per policy, even conservative ideals (though also a balance wtih somewhat liberal), and textually.

yeah i'm hardcore moderate, all the way. not your everyday wishy washy moderate.

[reelguy227]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1934124' date='Jul 28 2009, 04:38 PM']I would say medical coverage for veterans and federal employees isn't guaranteed by the constitution, but offering such an employer to employee benefit isn't a violation of the constitution.[/quote]

The reason I consider those things a violation of the Constitution is because Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison have clearly and easily explained to us that they are—and I consider them the best interpreters of anything constitutional, seeing that they lived in that time and had firsthand knowledge of the events that were so critical to this nation's founding. So I always look to what they had to say on what the federal government's powers are before going to some scholar of today.

Ultimately, the way they put it—and its pretty common sensical to me—is that if it's not in Article 1, Section 8 Congress can't do it. Plain and simple. And the most eye opening quote about the bounds of our Congress's power was stated by Thomas Jefferson, and this is what he said:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition."

What he said above is exactly what I believe regarding the bounds of Congress. Hassan and yourself may disagree with me, but that's alright, because this America and you guys have a right to disagree with me, but that's what I believe and I won't back down on it. I'm not going to continued beating a dead horse.

Edited July 29, 2009 by reelguy227