I have heard from a variety of sources that Obama's "victory" with National Health Care might be spoiled by a lengthy battle with the Supreme Court. Why? Because the system as it is designed and has been approved pushes aside other supreme court decisions with respect to abortion, and other rights that individuals have regarding their own health and taxation.
Most recently, a group of Attorney General's from at least 13 states have already threatened law suits claiming that some of the provisions are unconstitutional. I am no attorney and I am no fan of the legislation but I am not sure how this is considered unconstitutional?
Any thoughts? Suggestions? It feels like it is unconstitutional I just wouldn't know where to start on a valid case to prove such to be true.
Have you read the constitution? I would start with the statement which says "promote the general welfare" and argue that National Healtchare is not promoting the general welfare it is providing it, which is clearly not congruent with what the Founding Fathers stated in the constitution when they chose the word promote rather than provide. Then I would show how other things that have been "provided" by the government have in fact diminished the general welfare of those who have been provided for.
ReplyDeleteGWH, I still think that is not a strong enough argument. Some could argue that our public school system is promoting the general welfare the same way that National Health Care would be promoting the general welfare. There are still private schools just like there are still will be private health care.
ReplyDeleteIn your words the government would be "providing it" not just promoting it. But because there is nothing explicitly stated that the governments role in promoting has to stop at providing (or at least none that I have seen), it would appear that the precedent stands against your argument.
It would appear the precedent is unconstitutional as well. Would you say the public school system is a success in it's endeavor to promote for the general education/welfare of the populace? Public schools cannot even begin to compete with private schools and it does nothing but substantiate my argument.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is a very wide gap between what is unconsitutional and what is wise and efficient business. For example the military is not particularly unconstitutional but they are not the most efficient. So just because the schools and most likely this health care system are not as efficient that is hardly a case that something is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteRemember I don't like the idea either, but I am trying to find a rock solid case that it is not constitutional. Some kind of explicit law that says it can't go forward. Not the interpretation of rhetoric and intention of a founding father. While there is value in considering this perspective in a final decision, the argument is thin when considered a constitutional issue.
James, you didn't answer my question about reading the constitution. Read it and then lets continue the debate. It is blatantly obvious that universal health care is not in congruence with the constitution because the constitution does not state that the government should "provide" anything, in fact that is not the governments role whatsover, the governments role is to allocate resources as agreed to by a particular society, and those resources are not something the government provides or produces but is given by a societies members via taxes. The majority of Americans do not want universal health care and therefore the government "representatives of society" should not go ahead and "provide" it anyway. They ought to listen to the will of the people, and that is the complaint, that they are not. I'm just trying to be a wise consumer and get the most for my money, and clearly, unequivocally the government never has, never is, and never will be the most efficient source of health care. For that matter, it is not an efficient source for most things.
ReplyDeleteGWH, show me in the constitution where it says that the government needs to be efficient since that is your only argument.
ReplyDeleteNow,
I will give you proof that you GWH are not only wrong on your stance that the government isn't to "provide" things, but I will also show that the amendments made to the health care legislation that bought the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 8 reads:
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;"
The government can provide things for the general welfare of the people according to this section but it also says that the latest amendments promising that Nebraska doesn't have to pay into the health care system but can still benefit from it, or in other words that such a tax (as this system will be paid for through taxes) would not have been universal or uniform amongst all the states.
Does that satisfy you GWH?
However, I still feel that there is something in the constitution that specifically would say that this DOES NOT fall under the general welfare category.
All hail great and wonderful James, the all knowing omniscient purveyor of knowledge!
ReplyDeleteThe constitution of the U.S. Constitution a.k.a. the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states -
ReplyDeleteWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Why did they separate Provide and Promote and enumerate each explicitly and individual from each other?
James,
ReplyDeleteI wrote three blogs touching on the unconstitutionality of nationalized health care:
http://amilitarymember.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-promoting-general-welfare.html
http://amilitarymember.blogspot.com/2009/09/socialism-core-of-health-care-debate.html
http://amilitarymember.blogspot.com/2009/10/socialism-core-of-health-care-debate-ii.html
To your point, there isn't a lot of difference in principle between a public educational system and a public health care system. That doesn't mean either are constitutional. I have a quote from James Madison in on of my blogs specifically addressing the Gen Welfare clause.
Redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional. Free governement exists to secure property, not arbitrarily take it and dispose of it.
That said, our drift towards socialism and current welfare climate will make it difficult to beat on principle alone in the SCOTUS, I'll grant you that.
The constitution is more than the preamble. You must be willing to read all the parts of the constitution to be able to determine what is constitutional and what is not. The constitution is not a buffet where you can pick and chose the parts you want to adhere to.
ReplyDeleteYou argue that universal healthcare and public schools are not constitutional because they are not efficient. However you have yet to find anywhere, even in the preamble, that says any government program needs to be efficient or that efficiency is a requirement of the constitution. Inefficiency is a bad idea but it is irrelevant to a discussion of constitutionality.
Then you hang on the idea that the government can only promote things for the general welfare of its citizens. The government is not an advertising agency promoting proper citizenship. There is nothing that I have seen in the constitution that limits or interprets "promote" to just that, promoting. In fact the earlier quoted article seems to imply that providing for the general welfare was the language given. and therefore a responsibility of government according to the constitution.
Please understand, this argument doesn't mean I am a fan of universal health care as proposed by our current government officials. I am trying to promote a sound argument against it is all.
I am interested in your articles Greg as there is somethings very unsettling about the direction things are heading and I am just wanting to make sure there is more substance to my feelings outside of them simply being my feelings. So thanks for sharing.
ReplyDelete