Great, the Democrats can obstruct everything after 2014, shut down the
government, whine that they do not have power and follow the civics lesson
taught by the radical juvenile tea party.
Is it not unconstitutional for our government leaders to force Obama Care on to
us and not themselves?
@Furry1993 "Amendment 14"I think you may have misunderstood
the question.Certainly we must pay debt we have already incurred.
But when Congress passes a law which says we shall no longer allocate money for
a specific program, the U.S. stops incurring new debt for that program. I asked
where the Constitution says they may not pass that law.@Furry1993
"I am surprised..."You shouldn't be. I said clearly
that laws which do harm to one person in order to do good to another cannot be
described as "general welfare." Obamacare will reduce the quality of
health care that most people now enjoy, in order to provide health insurance for
a greater number of (but not all) citizens. It's simply not general.
@T.Party 2:04 p.m. Oct. 1, 2013 Pleasant Grove, UT@Furry1993 "general welfare"General welfare benefits all
citizens. For example, building roads upon which anyone can drive, or raising an
army to provide protection for everyone.-----------------I am
surprised that you don't recognize the fact that the general welfare of the
United States is promoted when its citizens are healthy and receive good and
competent health care and health insurance, instead of the current situation
where they receive no health care until a crisis occurs and they get their
health care form an expensive emergency room visit at the expense of all the
tax-paying citizens in the country.
@T.Party 1:2 p.m. Oct. 2 2013The answer to your question is found in
Amendment 14 to the US Constitution at paragraph 4:4. The validity
of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts
incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United
States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid
of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the
loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims
shall be held illegal and void.Funding for the Affordable Care Act
has already been approved, and should be paid.
@LDS Liberal "Ignoring and trampling the constitution..."This is where you get to show me the passage in the Constitution that requires
Congress to fund everything passed by a previous Congress. Post it right here.
Gotta love how Conservatives support the Constitution and the electoral college
"selecting" GW Bush when he didn't win the popular vote, butIgnoring and trampling the constitution about laws passed both the
House and the Senate, signed into law by the President and upheld by the Supreme
Mountanman,your name is misspelled and It would be great if this was settled by
respected election results rather than backdoor threats and attempts to overturn
elections and rulings of the Supreme Court. Just saying.
"Why have you not advocated for laws allowing/requiring ERs to refuse
treatment to those who have no means to pay?"Truthseeker . Now
that's completely different. That requirement was put in by Reagan.
Dear Mr Mountan (sp) I am receiving the same subsidy that every other citizen
receives through his employer. You see, like it or not we are all
"paying" for healthcare of others now but we who are paying close to the
same tax rates for healthcare as Canadians and yet I must hire an accountant to
audit and an attorney to advocate every time I'm in need of major medical.
Even you, an advocate of the archaic system we have had is supplementing the
rest of us. Those visits to a provider by deadbeats isn't free. But, thanks
Jefferson and Hamilton's debate over the Necessary and Proper Clause came
to a head in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Mcculloch v. Maryland.McCulloch v. Maryland was the first case in which the Supreme Court applied
the Necessary and Proper Clause. Some constitutional historians believe that
this opinion represents an important act in the ultimate creation of the U.S.
federal government. The case involved the question of whether Congress had the
power to charter a bank. At first, this question might seem inconsequential, but
underlying it are larger questions that go to the foundations of constitutional
interpretation. To some extent, they are still debated.The questions
before the Supreme Court involved whether the state or national government held
more power. The Court held that Maryland could not undermine an act of Congress.
The states were subordinate to the federal government. This ruling established
that Congress could use the Necessary and Proper Clause to create a bank even
though the Constitution does not explicitly grant that power to Congress. Chief
Justice Marshall's opinion endorsed the constitutionality of the bank, but
went on to uphold a broad interpretation of the federal government's powers
under the Constitution.
It sounds like Hamilton was talking out of both sides of his mouth. But in the
same document, he wrote, “There seems to be no room for a doubt, that
whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of
manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils,
as far as regards an application of money.” If these areas are "within
the sphere," why not health care? I think Hamilton, who was a founding
father, would like Obamacare.
Re:TParty"is not general welfare to take money from one group of
people and to spend it on nice things for another group of people."Is that how you view healthcare--a "nice thing?" Like a new car or a
new TV?We have very different perceptions of what constitutes a
civilized society.Why have you not advocated for laws
allowing/requiring ERs to refuse treatment to those who have no means to pay?Only then will there not be money shifting from one group to another.
What does the Constitution really say? Where is that "elastic clause"
found? Does that clause stand on its own, or is it dependent on the
"foregoing" clauses found in that single sentence that comprises Article
1, Section 8?Here is the text: "To make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
or in any Department or Officer thereof."That is the last CLAUSE
of that sentence. The foregoing powers are listed (enumerated) immediately
before it in that single sentence. The Powers vested by this Constitution must
also be listed (enumerated), otherwise, they are to be left to the States, as
required by the 10th Amendment.There is nothing "elastic"
about that clause. It strictly limits the authority of the Federal Government
to tax us to those explicit duties listed (enumerated) in the Constitution. Those who want to change the Constitution to include others duties are
free to do so if they can convince 75% of the States that their changes are good
@Furry1993 "general welfare"General welfare benefits all
citizens. For example, building roads upon which anyone can drive, or raising an
army to provide protection for everyone.It is not general welfare to
take money from one group of people and to spend it on nice things for another
group of people. That is something else entirely. The Constitution doesn't
empower Congress to do it.
Re:BradDawYou're wrong about Hamilton.The Necessary and
Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the U.S. It is also sometimes
called the "elastic clause." It grants Congress the powers that are
implied in the Constitution, but that are not explicitly stated. That is why the
powers derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause are referred to as implied
powers.The correct way to interpret the Necessary and Proper Clause
was the subject of a debate between Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton argued for
an expansive interpretation of the clause. His view would have authorized
Congress to exercise a broad range of implied powers. On the other hand,
Jefferson was concerned about vesting too much power in any one branch of
government. He argued that "necessary" was a restrictive adjective
meaning essential. Jefferson's interpretation would have strengthened
States' Rights. George Washington and James Madison favored Hamilton's
more flexible interpretation, and subsequent events helped to foster the growth
of a strong central government.
100 years ago - back when Conservatives still obeyed, honored and sustained the
Constitution of the United States - When they wanted prohibition,
they got the VOTES, in the House, in the Senate, and in the
Whitehouse, to pass a law, and an amendment (18th) to stop the sale and
transportation of alcohol.When it didn't work out, The
Liberals got the votes, in the House, and in the Senate, and
in the WhiteHouse, to change it back (21st amendment).Today's Tea-Party and their extortion tactics on the entire country to
get something they can't win with enough votes for would put Al Copone,
Frank Costello, and Lucky Luciano to shame!
@MaxPower Since the Supreme Court has clearly changed its mind on several
occasions, I will gladly stand by my assertion that the best yardstick of
constitutionality is not any current Supreme Court decision but the original
intent of those who wrote and ratified it along with the intent of those who
amended it. And I will assert, as Hamilton and others have clearly outlined that
congress has no authority under the Constitution to enact most parts of
ObamaCare. Yes it will have to tried again, but certainly doesn't mean the
Supreme Court got it right the first time.
@MountanmanNothing in my post indicated my views on the law, only
the fault in your understanding of how the Constitution works and what the
popularity actually meansI get my health care courtesy of you seeing
as I am in on Active Duty in the Army. When my time is up in a month, I will be
purchasing my healthcare through the private sector. The only subsidy I'll
be getting is whatever my employer contributes to my premium. If
the law is as unpopular as you claim (which I doubt because of what I already
outlined happened in 2012) then they should have no problem stacking the white
house and congress in 2016 and repealing it in the manner already authorized my
@Brad DawAmendments 16-22. None of which have to do with
segregation. However, the Supreme Court can and has changed its mind on
Constitutionality (it's rare, but it goes to show the document is not as
cut and dry as some would have you think). To follow that example,
one must amend the Constitution, or try the case again before the ultimate
@ugottabikidn & maxpwoer. You must have either gotten a waiver from
Obamacare or will be getting a nice subsidy. Call me back in a year when the
Obamacare damage assessments roll in!
@MaxPower: Good point. Could you tell me which Constitutional amendment occurred
between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education to cause such a
complete change in the court's opinion?
CNN/ORC poll today: "Less than one in five people say Obamacare
will make them and their families better off. About 40 percent say it will make
them worse off, or will have no effect at all."and"Just more than 50 percent of people in the U.S. agree that ObamaCare is
not ready for primetime."
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahPersonal health care is not
covered in General Welfare. Medicare is personal welfare. ObamaCare is personal
welfare. Social Security, is personal welfare. We're illegally taxed to
fund those services. ======= So - Honesty and
Integrity question for you; Are you planning on living by those
words - YOUR words - and NOT sign up for Social Security or Medicare?or Are you going to say one thing, and then do the other?=========== @J ThompsonSame question,Are
you going to pony up to the "public trough", as you called it?
@Brad DawAt the time of the horrible, horrible decision of Dred
Scott, it was still Constitutional. Do you know how that was changed?
Amendments 13 and 14. Short of a Constitutional Amendment, the
Supreme Court has the final say on what is in bounds and out of bounds.
Very interesting comments. For the many of you saying that ObamaCare is
constitutional because the Supreme Court says it is, I have but two words: Dred
ScottFor those who try to argue that the "necessary and
proper" phrase allows congress to basically do whatever it wants I would
suggest you re-read what Alexander Hamilton wrote. He clearly disagrees. If that
doesn't work you could read Madison who sees an even more limited federal
government than Hamilton.
Mountain from Id, The polls you cite do not tell the whole story. A substantial
amount polled believe Obamacare doesn't go far enough. Meaning they prefer
a single payer system to one that is primarily beneficial to the wealthy.
Coupled with those in favor the majority are in favor of changing the healthcare
system that is the most discriminatory in the industrialized world. As for you
Constitutional thumpers, when you are paid to interrupt the Constitution then I
will take your view seriously. Some of you continually pick and choose what you
believe and what you don't. I can only imagine how your pick and choose
tactics work in church.
@MountanmanNews flash for you, if a law is unpopular enough there is
a legal way to repeal it. See Article I of the Constitution. Unless your copy
says something about a law being unpopular it can be ignored, my understanding
is it has to go through a process in which a new law is created saying the other
is repealed.Another one: The President ran on this in 08 and
won...and won reelection on it! More people voted for democrats than
republicans in the House races (see gerrymandering) and the Senate gained seats.
This revolted you expect to happen in 2014 should have probably happened in
2012 with the guy who repeated "Day 1 I will repeal Obamacare"Didn't happen. The last poll that counted validated the Affordable Care
@ One vote. I have a news flash for you. Those supporting Obamacare are the
minority! Check the polls. Not good news for your side. Expect a revolt at the
2014 elections and Democrats up for election will be sent packing! So much for
What clause talks about refusing to fund government to force legislation by a
Mike,When I see you rant about any GOP proposal that does not fit
your narrow constitutional view, I will listen to you.You carp daily
about the Democrats. Are you suggesting that the GOP does not violate your
constitutional views?When have you ever ranted against them? Excuse
me if I view your Constitutional view as partisan and selective.I
also find it hilarious that many on the right blast Obama for
"illegally" postponing the implementation of the ACA while screaming
that they want to postpone it.
Americans, i.e, the People, are bound by the Constitution just as much as the
government is bound. Americans have no right to demand "services" from
the Federal Government that remove from them their personal responsibility to
provide for their own personal needs. The People have no right to demand that
other citizens open their wallets to pay for their doctor bills or for the
groceries or for their housing. The People have no right to take from the
general revenue of the United States to pay for those things that they cannot or
will not pay themselves.The Constitution protects the people from a
government that would take away our rights and our responsibilities. The Constitution protects the government from people who demand access to
general revenue funds, People who want to eat from a public trough, People who
want someone else to pay for their doctor visits, for their visits to the
grocery store, for their rent, for their education and for all the other
"personal welfare" duties that they have responsibility to handle
The Constitution clearly states that the best way to run the country is to have
millions of families uninsured and without access to healthcare. That way the
industry can make massive profits instead of helping the people who need it.
MikeWe are all Americans whether we subscribe to your view of
Constitutional interpretation or not.
If people would read the Constitution before posting, they would clearly see
that Article 1, Section 8, lists the duties of the Federal Government; the
duties that require taxation. All other duties are left to the States,
according to the 10th Amendment. General Welfare is the phrase that
liberals love. They ignore the Constitution's limits and apply
"General Welfare" to anything that they want funded, which is totally
outside the duties of the Federal Government.Personal health care is
not covered in General Welfare. Medicare is personal welfare. ObamaCare is
personal welfare. Social Security, is personal welfare. We're illegally
taxed to fund those services.Judges that rule because of political
pressure or are too cowardly to oppose public opinion have given each family
bills that they cannot pay without destroying their ability to provide for
themselves; therefore, they become pawns to those who rule and reign in
Washington. The public has become so dependent on Washington that
they forget that they are Americans and that Americans have the responsibility
to provide for their own personal welfare.
Just ask yourself this: Do you have more or less freedom today than you did
yesterday?All three branches of our government have run amok.
I'm with you, Brad. England picked and chose what he wanted to use of
Hamilton's statements to support the feds all inclusive interpretation of
the general welfare.With his interpretation there are no limits.
@ Joe Blow. Democrats and Obama are unfairly, unconstitutionally and illegally
changing the implementation of Obamacare as Obama has mandated at least 17
changes without congressional approval and has given waivers to his rich and
powerful friends and themselves. Why do you think Obamacare is so very unpopular
with the middle class? Now you know!
Democrats don't care about the constitution one bit! Obamcare was passed
without one GOP vote, declared constitutional by the SCOTUS only as it was
declared a tax. Since then, Obama has illegally and unconstitutionally mandated
at least 17 changes in the law, without any congressional approval. Obama has
given waivers to financial supporters and themselves illegally! The GOP and
honest Americans everywhere are saying, "Wait a minute, I want an exemption
too"! But this mess is forced upon the middle class. But Obama and the
Democrats are outraged by some Americans wanting fairness and the rule of law
adhered to. Honesty, integrity and the rule of law applied equally and fairly to
which the Democrats object to. Note to you Demos, your phony and illegally
administered ACA is very unpopular and you can expect an uprising against your
party and you will lose at the polls future elections!
Look -- If you want to live in 1787, that's fine by me.You are free to move to remote, unpopulated area, build your one room
cabin, dig a well, grow your own garden, use your gun to shoot
your food and protect yourself [if you have a neighbor - form that well TRAINED
militia also required], chop your wood, pay next to nothing in
taxes, live "free" and die. The rest of us understand
that the Founding Father were intentionally vague and allowed for
interpretations of the "intent" of the Constitution to allow for it to
stand the test of time and allow for...(here it is, I know you ultra-cons are
going to hate this)...PROGRESS.Guys like this will aruge we
can't have an Air Force because only "army" or "navy" is
If the Republicans want so badly to remove the Affordable Care Act, they need to
take the Senate and the Presidency - then they can follow the constitutional
procedures to pass a new law or remove a law. The current law, which was passed
by the House, the Senate, signed by the President, and reviewed by the Supreme
Court, is now the law of the land. You not liking it does not change that fact.
By this logic, wouldn't Medicare part D and No Child left Behind also fall
into that category?(along with hundreds, if not thousands of other
programs)Only 25 Republicans voted against Med Part D, the largest
entitlement expansion in decades.I find it curious (and partisan
perhaps) that so many want to use selective logic when dealing with things that
they don't want, by parties that they don't like.If the
logic was applied universally and uniformly, the GOP would have no true
following by conservatives.But, that is not the case. Why do you
think that is?
Not according the the supreme Court of the United States.
The constitution specifically allows congress to do whatever is necessary and
proper to, among other things, promote the general welfare of the United States.
The Affordable Care Act (originally drafted by the extremely conservative
Heritage Foundation) promotes the general welfare of the United States.
Therefore its establishment is clearly within the specifically granted powers
found in the US Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was right. Brad Daw is not.
As the author points out, Hamilton spoke with the intention to limit the power
of Congress with regard to the general welfare of nation, no doubt fearing that
things might run amok in that regard. But just as clearly, Hamilton believed in
the processes set forth in the Constitution. One clear process is that the
Supreme Court should rule on the Constitutionality of any law passed by the
Congress. In the case of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court has done
just that and ruled that it is Constitutional. Call it a ruling in favor of a
tax or whatever you care to but the court ruled that it's provisions are
Constitutional.I know the Republicans were counting on the court to
say otherwise and they were disappointed by the decision. Just like I know the
Republicans hoped the last presidential election would be a rebuke to the Obama
Administration and they were just as disappointed. So now is the time for them
to buck up and accept reality - the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ACA and
the American people made a choice in the national election to support the
leading proponent of the ACA.
If Medicare is constitutional, Obamacare is constitutional. The Supreme Court
says that both of them are, and that's good enough for me.