- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I have to prove that the Founding Fathers didn't want the government to do something? That's not how they wrote. They specifically laid out those things that the government should do. If it's not there, then it can't be done.
Technically, it laid out what the federal government should do and if it's not there it is left to the individual States to decide unless expressly prohibited.
Only an amendment would really grant federal authority over an unmentioned situation.
Yeah, I guess I could have been more explicit.
I have to prove that the Founding Fathers didn't want the government to do something? That's not how they wrote. They specifically laid out those things that the government should do. If it's not there, then it can't be done.
We 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.
Please backup this assertion.Necessary and proper clause paired with any number of the other clauses (especially the commerce clause) makes anything possible.
At the time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, there were 13 new states with no federal beaurocracy, no money for the military, no communication between geographic areas, not even any payment for the framers themselves. It is a bit of a reach to expect them to anticipate a day when the United States is so wealthy and connected that it is capable of insuring health care, education, and other services for its populace. However, I seriously doubt they would object to the concept, as it fits with their premise as stated in the preamble to the Constitution:
Because it only wastes a little bit of my time, I will challenge you to show this to be true.I think the founding fathers would agree that a nation is obligated to provide whatever positive rights it is capable of, and that the nation they founded, in the 21st century, should have made great strides in "promoting the general welfare".
Please backup this assertion.
Should be self-evident. The necessary and proper clause basically makes it so there is no limit on the strength or universality of laws Congress can draft to execute the powers apportioned to it in the U.S. Constitution, including the amendments. After that, it is a "simple" matter of finding a clause somewhere which seems to provide a precedent for the establishment of a national health care industry. One comes to mind in the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment or any number of the clauses which concern Congress's authority to see to the security of the American people or both or something else; since health care is fundamental to having a safe life, and since insurance companies discriminate based on income or age, it can be viewed as an obligation of the federal government to provide affordable insurance for all persons not able to acquire it in the private sector.
Take a look at this thread.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/government-separation-powers/49720-taking-bets-feds-vs-states.html
The Constitution is not a document giving unlimited power to the federal government. Not even close.
The key concept here being "apportioned to it in the U.S. Constitution,"Should be self-evident. The necessary and proper clause basically makes it so there is no limit on the strength or universality of laws Congress can draft to execute the powers apportioned to it in the U.S. Constitution, including the amendments.
So everyone in the US was living in grass huts? Are you kidding me? We not only had mail service, but plenty of wealth. It's just that Congress had little wealth. And that's what really grinds at you, Congress had little wealth and power. So they couldn't force the populace into paying for insane social schemes like we have today. You don't know your history as well as you think, my friend. We did have a federal bureaucracy, it just didn't have the teeth it has assumed now. The American Dream is the liberty to make something of yourself without government seizing your work and your wealth. Unfortunately, socialist causes are trying to kill it with the cover of taking care of the less fortunate.At the time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, there were 13 new states with no federal beaurocracy, no money for the military, no communication between geographic areas, not even any payment for the framers themselves. It is a bit of a reach to expect them to anticipate a day when the United States is so wealthy and connected that it is capable of insuring health care, education, and other services for its populace. However, I seriously doubt they would object to the concept, as it fits with their premise as stated in the preamble to the Constitution:
"As to the new Constitution... Would it not have been better to assign to Congress exclusively the article of imposts for federal purposes, and to have left direct taxation exclusively to the States? I should suppose the former fund sufficient for all probably events, aided by the land office." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:395
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15, Papers 7:557
"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass the money through so many new hands?" --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. Papers 7:557
"A rigid economy of the public contributions and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491
"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects forbids it in the disposition of the public moneys." --Thomas Jefferson to Shelton Gilliam, 1808. ME 12:73
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802. ME 10:342
The key concept here being "apportioned to it in the U.S. Constitution,"
That is, any legislation greated thru the Elastic Clause must be in reference to some explicit power given to Congress by the Constitution.
And so, unless you can show where the Constitution explicitly gives Congress to create legislation regarding education, you cannot argue that the Elasic Clause allows Congress to create said legislation.
Retirement, health care... all suffer the same fate.
that sums it up for me pretty well.Says me, the person that has to be taxed to pay for someone's else's non-existent "right".
The exercise of a right does not incur expense on others.
You want to make a speech? Go ahead, ain't costing me a dime.
You want to buy a gun? Go ahead, but use your money, 'cuz I don't have to buy yours.
You want to worship some stupid god? Go ahead, be as silly as you want.
You want to go to the doctor? Fine by me, but don't send me the bill, it's not my responsibility.
See? Health care ain't a right, not if it involves stealing my money to pay for it.
And yet, the powers given to Congress are limited and highly specific.The Constitution and its amendments are drafted in highly general terms.
Yes... within the powers in question.Edmund Randolph, who wrote the first draft, explained that he had to write it this way so that it would be able to adapt to changing times and circumstances.
Suppose this is true.As to whether we ought to interpret the U.S. Constitution narrowly or broadly; there was no consensus even among the Founding Fathers. It was a topic of hot debate in their time, even among those who together drafted the document, even as they were drafting it. Because of that, there is no definite or final precedent to which either liberals or conservatives can refer to justify their views of the document...
Sure it does.That things are not explicitly mentioned does not ultimately matter...
Fallacy: Appeal to popularity.-- or, at least, it does not "have to" matter, depending on which style of interpretation is winning the American political game at the time
Be specific:Airlines are not explicitly mentioned, but they get grouped under a bunch of constitutional clauses anyway. The same thing can occur with health service.
Fallacy: Appeal to authorityI already offered one possible constitutional rationale for how the health insurance program might be legitimized. But I assure you, it will, barring some unlikely upset from the U.S. Supreme Court down the road, be legitimized.
They arent. See Amendment IX.I'm curious, how is it that all "rights" are supposed to be spelled out in the constitution?
I'm sorry but you soarly do not understand the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes the powers to the Federal government. It does not prescribe the rights of the People. You will not find many of the rights of the People discussed.I'm curious, how is it that all "rights" are supposed to be spelled out in the constitution? Also, doesn't new information (like medical advancement) allow for the extension of said rights in the constitution? It's stupid to think that the document our founding fathers created was the only thing they thought rights would be or become or that they could even fathom some of the possibilities. Is the constitution like scripture or the koran? A holy document? I don't think so. To extend the rights to health, which I think access to health care is inherently a right, does not violate the constitution. Please show me where the constitution says it is NOT a right? To argue otherwise is an argument from omission, which is no argument at all.
And when you do, it will be in terms of the right already existing, and that the government is denied the power to act against it.I'm sorry but you soarly do not understand the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes the powers to the Federal government. It does not prescribe the rights of the People. You will not find many of the rights of the People discussed.
Good point, this is where it gets tricky, the government, whether local, state, or federal is required to provide due process to the accused to be executed by a jury of his peers, since this is a requirement, the trial is a right, but providing such is a mandate, interestingly, a person may waive a trial and save the taxpayers money, so it is not the same as making me buy your gun, or your radio tower, etc.I agree that the health care as a right thing is ridiculous (still don't really know what it means either), but costing money is not the difference. A trial by jury costs taxpayer money, and is indeed a right.
Yes. In effect, the Constitution mandates that the government(s) provide you the means to exercise these rights by creating and supporting the vehicles necessary to do so.Good point, this is where it gets tricky, the government, whether local, state, or federal is required to provide due process to the accused to be executed by a jury of his peers, since this is a requirement...
I was having trouble closing that thought out, perfectly stated. Thx.Yes. In effect, the Constitution mandates that the government(s) provide you the means to exercise these rights by creating and supporting the vehicles necessary to do so.
This is, however, a Constitutional mandate that creates a basic function of government, the only means through which the rights in question CAN be exercised.
As such, these examples have no bearing whatsoever on the argument as to whether or not the government can/should provide you the means to exercise your right to health care.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?