ObamaRama 8

[Foxton]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Instead of trying to prove a negative, (since any power not explicitly stated in the constitution belongs to the states) here's a better idea. How about you show us all where in the constitution this bill is allowed.

Er no, it's his job to prove how it's unconstitutional, since he was the one making the claim that it was.


But here you go.

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

Unless you think health care isn't a type of general welfare.

 

[Patman]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Unless you think health care isn't a type of general welfare.

That hasn't meant general welfare ever in fact it would starkly defy the nature and presumption of statehood held at the time it was written.

Do you honestly want to tell me that national health care fits the definition of "general welfare" circa 1787?

 

[Patman]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Here's what I find interesting. Can any righty name me any GOP sponsored bill that was enacted into law that actually cut the deficit? Because the two meant to do so, this health care bill (1.4T over the next 20 years) and the Clinton deficit reduction bill in 1993, both passed only with Dem votes. And much like the '93 effort, the same knuckledraggers were out saying "it'll never work".

So, how do we know this will work? C'mon, this should be easy for you to assess a bill which nobody has seen implementing rules that nobody really knows the nature thereof affecting markets and budgets in ways that we haven't conceived. 2000 pages written by the smartest of all of us should be easy to justify... that's why nobody else needs to read it before hand or take any time to deliberate on it.

 

[Foxton]

Re: ObamaRama 8

That hasn't meant general welfare ever in fact it would starkly defy the nature and presumption of statehood held at the time it was written.

Do you honestly want to tell me that national health care fits the definition of "general welfare" circa 1787?

What health care in 1787? You'd probably be better off not seeing a doctor back then.

So what does welfare mean?

Merriam Webster Dictionary
Welfare - : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

well-being - :the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous

And by your logic, how can the constitution apply to things invented since the constitution was drafted?

 

[Patman]

Re: ObamaRama 8

What health care in 1787? You'd probably be better off not seeing a doctor back then.

So what does welfare mean?

Merriam Webster Dictionary
Welfare - : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

well-being - :the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous

And by your logic, how can the constitution apply to things invented since the constitution was drafted?

by applying the constitution as it was drafted. If it doesn't work then you change the constitution. If "general welfare" becomes in meaning "sacrifice a virgin to the volcano god so that he may spare the rest of us" should we run with it? Yes, that's over the top but language changes slowly. Hell, even language is political... before this past year "teabagger" meant either somebody who makes teabags or as slang in terms of some sexual act.

May seem pedantic to you but the constitution actually has to mean something to mean something... otherwise its read in whatever manner one wants to and only reinforced by a vote of a small number. The entire point of the constitution is to be a foundation of agreed principles and structures. It also has provisions to make changes. Otherwise how can we trust what is written if its subject to meaning something else later. If society changes so that the constitution isn't helpful then you change the constitution you don't change the definitions in the dictionary. This whole movement to change the meaning of "promote the general welfare" is only a few years old and used by those who want to bring universal health care without falling to various constitutional traps. In other words its been invented since you started college.

So, why does the constitution now allow the exercise of something that it didn't a decade previous? Oh, by the way, "universal health care" ideas have been around since at least the 1940s and probably even before that as the UK only implemented their system during WWII. The "general welfare" didn't mean what you wanted to at that time either.

Sorry if all this doesn't help you implement what you believe to be morally good. You can always work to change the constitution instead of ignoring it because its inconvenient. If you think its outdated then work on updating it. If a date on a calendar changes the meaning then all we are is subject to the whims of those around us and the document itself is nothing more than an old sheet of paper.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: ObamaRama 8

What health care in 1787? You'd probably be better off not seeing a doctor back then.

So what does welfare mean?

Merriam Webster Dictionary
Welfare - : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

well-being - :the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous

And by your logic, how can the constitution apply to things invented since the constitution was drafted?

is that a dictionary you have that was printed in 1786??

 

[Foxton]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Sorry if all this doesn't help you implement what you believe to be morally good.

Your post doesn't really help anything. The Constitution is a living document, that if it can't be applied to current day events/standards then it must as a last resort, be amended.

BTW, from 1828 Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,welfare

Welfare - 1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

Please provide what this word meant in terms of the constitution if you still want to contest it. Even the original wording "wel faran" meant "condition of being or doing well".

You could of course argue that it meant for the states or country to do well, but then again the preamble starts with a very clear "We the people" and finishes with "ourselves and posterity". Things that are not states or country.

 

[rufus]

Re: ObamaRama 8

C'mon, don't you understand that the founding fathers meant 'general welfare' to mean that everyone in the country to be on welfare?

It's so frickin' obvious.

 

[Foxton]

Re: ObamaRama 8

C'mon, don't you understand that the founding fathers meant 'general welfare' to mean that everyone in the country to be on welfare?

It's so frickin' obvious.

A utopia!

On a serious note, I'm not in favor of the current bill, it's a sham. Any good it might have done has been drug out in committee for special interests.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: ObamaRama 8

The Constitution is a living document, that if it can't be applied to current day events/standards then it must as a last resort, be amended..

disagree. the constitution as written is not living, but it is as it's written.

also, the amendments are certainly not last resorts, they are provided for to be added and should in fact be.

after all, they added 10 amendments almost immediately to the constitution. we should do the same if we have an idea in mind that should be added to the basic framework of our republic.

if the constitution was a living document, they would have stated as such in the period of 1788-1791 and massaged the wording to allow for the bill of rights w/o needing no stikin' bill of rights. but instead they added amendments.

 

[Foxton]

Re: ObamaRama 8

after all, they added 10 amendments almost immediately to the constitution. we should do the same if we have an idea in mind that should be added to the basic framework of our republic.

if the constitution was a living document, they would have stated as such in the period of 1788-1791 and massaged the wording to allow for the bill of rights w/o needing no stikin' bill of rights. but instead they added amendments.

They added those amendments because the constitution did not deal with the subjects specifically.

Religion/Free speech? Are those found anywhere in the original document?
Trial by Jury in civil cases?
Right to keep and bear arms?

They're not, they had to be added later once the basic structure had been put in place.

It's one of the intelligent things the old guys who came up with it did. Create a document with broad terms that can be flexible enough to keep up with the times, but still provide basic ground rules, and not have to be rewritten every few years. While still allowing for it to be changed with amendments when issues that could not be accounted for at the time came up.

How stable would this country be if a new constitution had to be redone every 20 years? How would it even be done with the ultra partisan politics of today?

 

[Handyman]

Re: ObamaRama 8

On a serious note, I'm not in favor of the current bill, it's a sham. Any good it might have done has been drug out in committee for special interests.

I think sham is an understatement...this bill isnt worth the paper it is written on. It doesn't do anything except give certain people the ability to say "We passed a bill about health care" yippie!

This whole thing is a friggin crock...but then again look who benefits not the people who can't afford to buy insurance and wasn't that what health care reform was supposed to be all about? Now apparently it is all about making it illegal to not have insurance and making those who can afford insurance subsidize those who can't meaning the insurance companies still make money! (since there is no public option or Universal Health Care) I can see how that would be incentive for them to offer better services at cheaper prices!

But hey I am sure it won Obama and the Dems a lot of Campaign Finance for the next round of elections...HUZZAH!

 

[mookie1995]

Re: ObamaRama 8

They added those amendments because the constitution did not deal with the subjects specifically.

Religion/Free speech? Are those found anywhere in the original document?
Trial by Jury in civil cases?
Right to keep and bear arms?

They're not, they had to be added later once the basic structure had been put in place.

It's one of the intelligent things the old guys who came up with it did. Create a document with broad terms that can be flexible enough to keep up with the times, but still provide basic ground rules, and not have to be rewritten every few years. While still allowing for it to be changed with amendments when issues that could not be accounted for at the time came up.

How stable would this country be if a new constitution had to be redone every 20 years? How would it even be done with the ultra partisan politics of today?

well, we wouldn't... the laws as written original - then changed (amended) when absolutely necessary (abolish slavery, prohibit alcohol, allow alcohol ). would be the basis required of the originally dictated limited federal govt.



i'd guess for the most part the structure that most of them foresaw was for the states to make their laws as their citizens saw fit and be the primary source of law making for the states of the united states. and the broadness that you see was part of a general belief that the federal government wouldn't really be necessary for overseeing the everyday lives of the citizenry.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

The "general welfare" clause (as it was originally intended) was supposed to mean that the laws had to be applicable to everyone and already be called for in the constitution. The entire document is about negative rights for government with the exception of a select few things that are specifically laid out (i.e. defense). I highly doubt they would suddenly put this one positive right in there.

Hamilton's explanation

There was a lot of debate as to whether the Bill of Rights should even be added to the constitution because the gov't already couldn't do any of those things. As an example, the gov't already couldn't limit free speech.

 

[Plante26]

Re: ObamaRama 8

One: How is it unconstitutional?

Here's the best explanation I can find:

Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a “tax” that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress’s authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by “taxing” anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

Furthermore:

The individual mandate to provide proof of a qualified plan or face a tax (penalty) is a bill of attainder, and it is obviously a penalty against a specific group - one that is uninsured or underinsured, so as to insure them. If one doesn’t comply, one is “named” and part of the “group”, which means income is expropriated for being guilty of a misdemeanor without due process required for a trial. Failure to provide proper notice through an income tax filing is a felony. This is coercion to comply based upon a bill of attainder case law and legal definitions..

 

[walrus]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Love that 60 by 40 vote, a true bi-partisan effort by our great senators. They should be proud

Sweet deal Nelson got for Nebraska also, Harry Reid should be proud of that

 

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Love that 60 by 40 vote, a true bi-partisan effort by our great senators. They should be proud

Sweet deal Nelson got for Nebraska also, Harry Reid should be proud of that

Did Maine's senators sign on the bill?

 

[walrus]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Did Maine's senators sign on the bill?

No, it was strickly party line

 

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: ObamaRama 8

No, it was strickly party line

I am glad... otherwise, it would be over for Snowe.

As a sidebar, too bad she failed at keeping NAS Brunswick off of the BACC 5 chopping block.

 

[walrus]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I am glad... otherwise, it would be over for Snowe.

As a sidebar, too bad she failed at keeping NAS Brunswick off of the BACC 5 chopping block.

Hopefully it will be over for her anyway, She is a great example why we need term limits