Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-08-2009, 06:21 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,742,332 times
Reputation: 4172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 gives Congress the power to levy taxes, duties, etc. for the purpose of paying off debt, the general defense, and the general welfare as defined by the 17 subsequent Clauses identified under Article I, Section 8. It does not grant Congress the power to do whatever they please for the General Welfare.
So, we agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2009, 06:27 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038
"The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be exercised by that Government.

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance."


Chief Justice John Marshall. McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2009, 06:30 PM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,903,733 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
"The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land.

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be exercised by that Government.

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance."

Chief Justice John Marshall. McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
Exactly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2009, 06:35 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,742,332 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
"...If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.
And universal socialized health care is clearly NOT within the scope of the Constitution.

Better luck next time, libbies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2009, 06:43 PM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,903,733 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
And universal socialized health care is clearly NOT within the scope of the Constitution.

Better luck next time, libbies.
I thought you had it. You quoted the right case. I give up. When they pass health care laws and they are upheld by the Supreme Court and you start scratching your head and wonder how they did that. Just come back and read my posts.

I know medicare and medicaid are both unconstitutional too. Apparently they did not get your memo. You may want to send it to them again. I am sure they will be dazzled with your grasp of the constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2009, 07:36 PM
 
5 posts, read 11,295 times
Reputation: 13
* Compulsory speech is Unconstitutional except in special cases...income taxes, having to show passports and driver licenses etc, grand juries, doctors having to report shootings and child abuse...and little else. Imagine…we have the Fifth Amendment Right To Remain Silent in even the biggest court trials etc etc…but not to parasitic private insurers?!

* When states forced car owners to purchase private insurance, officials took pains to say that it was constitutional because---no one was compelled to drive. With health care?...you'd have to leave the country or die to opt out.

* Ah...but this is probably the reason for the "public option"...precisely to make it Constitutionally legal. And that Public Option will provide the same care etc?

* Is there a way in the proposals for Employers to choose the Pubic Option? If not...that part may be a Constitutional problem.

* Of course, if one goes the Public Option route, one is still providing revenue to private insurers because the govt will simply use your (and everyone's) tax revenues to pay the private insurers that way. Govt isn't going to give it to doctors or hospitals etc. Must have that parasitic middle man.
Also, of course, if one chooses the Private Insurance Option…well…that wealthy and quite generous person (or duped) would be contributing TWICE to Private Insurance coffers; Once directly, and the second time via Income Taxes.

* If a business or individual is compelled (under threat of tax penalties or whatnot) to patronize private insurers...one is ALSO, incidentally and inescapably, compelled to provide revenues for those private insurers for Campaign Gifts to candidates (to YOUR choices?), and, in the case of For-Profits, to investment revenue to invest in industries that may utterly violate ones principles re/ religion, morals, politics or even business.
Want to go the Public Option Route to avoid that? Sorry...the govt, as noted, will simply give public tax revenues to those same insurers for those same purposes.

* Then, of course, it will be a grand day when an Insurance Industry supporter in govt is asked, in a Public Forum, how he/she can find a Public Interest justification for forcing people to also provide insurance funding for things Utterly Un-Connected to Public Health…namely, advertising, PR, lobbying, CEO bonuses, corporate jets, business conventions, and brass polish at corporate headquarters.

If the Constitution can be twisted to compel people to pay for that….we are in a worse situation than ordinarily realized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2009, 07:46 PM
 
5 posts, read 11,295 times
Reputation: 13
Another Constitutional Problem:

* If anyone challenges any of this mandate stuff in court, is there a chance anywhere of finding judges or jurors not economically associated with, or even funded by, private insurers?...OR economically-linked to the insurers' Investment Properties?
Due Process guarantees no such bias...or even the Appearance of Bias.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2009, 07:50 PM
 
12,436 posts, read 11,903,733 times
Reputation: 3159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja View Post
Another Constitutional Problem:

* If anyone challenges any of this mandate stuff in court, is there a chance anywhere of finding judges or jurors not economically associated with, or even funded by, private insurers?...OR economically-linked to the insurers' Investment Properties?
Due Process guarantees no such bias...or even the Appearance of Bias.
Federal judges have life time appointments. They don't have to get reelected. I don't think they are bought, but that does not make them free from bias.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2009, 07:56 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,908,857 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
And universal socialized health care is clearly NOT within the scope of the Constitution.

Better luck next time, libbies.
When you can learn to do something other than recite the 10th Amendment as if you were Dorothy trying to get back to Kansas, and can instead discuss in detail not only the 10th Amendment and the prevailing Supreme Court cases regarding exercise of Federal powers, in the very specific context of a pending bill for "universal socialized health care plan" then I will start to pay attention to your legal opinions.

Until then...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2009, 09:31 PM
 
4,604 posts, read 8,199,975 times
Reputation: 1266
Holy Christ and the Gods Almighty....

??? Where ??? do people learn stuff like this


Quote:
I understand the argument that Congress has the authority to create a national health insurance system under the "general Welfare" clause. I'm not saying I agree with it or even that they really do have the authority, but I understand that there is a legitimate debate.

However, when I read that Senator Kennedy wants to mandate that all businesses offer health insurance to their employees, I have to ask: Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to do that? Another approach would be to require all citizens to have coverage. Again, where is Congress authorized to do that?
You. MUST. BE. KIDDING... ! ? ! ? ! ?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top