political_debater
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 15
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
For all your national health care and insurance propponents out there!
How is the "general welfare" "necessary and proper " and "regulating commerce" clause justify national health care and mandating americans to buy health insurance?
Some mannequins aka dummies, have even stated "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happyness" which isn't even part of the law-making constitution.
here's some sources that goes into detail.
Is National Health Insurance Constitutional? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
and
http://california.tenthamendmentcen...welfare-does-not-include-national-healthcare/
1: General Welfare Cluase
and this...
So basically, progressives like to use "general welfare" as a means but never point what the founders met and how "general welfare" was define.
Why don't they just rename all government-controlled hospitals and the health-care system to "post-office" I mean, you wait in line, anyways!!
2: Necessary and Proper Cluase
3: Regulating Commerce
I could be wrong, but I think The "Executive" branch will have oversight over the health-care system and this is not even part of the "Legislative" articles.
And no one give me that "not national health care just regulation" crap because this is far reaching, either way!
How is the "general welfare" "necessary and proper " and "regulating commerce" clause justify national health care and mandating americans to buy health insurance?
Some mannequins aka dummies, have even stated "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happyness" which isn't even part of the law-making constitution.
here's some sources that goes into detail.
Is National Health Insurance Constitutional? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
and
http://california.tenthamendmentcen...welfare-does-not-include-national-healthcare/
1: General Welfare Cluase
None of these clauses—or any others found in the Constitution—gives Congress the power to create a government healthcare system.
The “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” This clause is not a grant of power to Congress (as constitutional law professor Gary Lawson has shown). It is a limit to a power given to Congress. It limits the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes.
During the founding, some Anti-Federalists were concerned that this clause “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.” But James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” explained very clearly that it granted no power to Congress. If the “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power to promote the general welfare, then why specifically list the other powers in Article I, such as the power to establish post offices and post roads, or to coin money? Wouldn’t it be redundant to list them?
In short, as Madison argued, Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can only do so for purposes of common defense or general welfare, in the service of the powers granted to it elsewhere in Article I.
and this...
The Founders gave the federal government only four areas of power: taxes, paying the debts, providing for the general welfare (that’s not the same as providing the general welfare), and providing for the common defense. That is it. All four powers are identified before the first semi colon. Everything that follows are simply qualifiers of these four.
The Founders did not dare to leave the phrase “general welfare” for future power grabbers, as there is no telling what they could do with this vague concept if left undefined. They understood that it is the nature of all governments to grow. As a result, clauses 2-9 list 14 powers that comprise “general welfare.” Five deal with borrowing money, regulating its value, and dealing with counterfeiting. The other nine powers include naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.
So basically, progressives like to use "general welfare" as a means but never point what the founders met and how "general welfare" was define.
Why don't they just rename all government-controlled hospitals and the health-care system to "post-office" I mean, you wait in line, anyways!!
2: Necessary and Proper Cluase
The "Necessary and Proper” gives Congress the power “to make all laws 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.” Like the general welfare clause, this clause was not a stand-alone grant of power to Congress. Rather, it authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary (and also proper) to make the other grants of authority in Article I effectual.
In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution.This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started
3: Regulating Commerce
Lastly, proponents might argue that national health insurance is part of Congress power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.” While progressives have often used this clause to expand the federal government, it does not apply especially to the creation of a national health insurance, because to create and engage in commerce is not the same thing as regulating commerce among the several states.
Nobody during the framing generation expected the commerce clause to expand the federal government’s authority to anything relating to or resembling commerce. James Madison wrote that it is a power “which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The clause was designed to prevent some states from taxing goods that passed through their boundaries as those goods proceeded to market.
I could be wrong, but I think The "Executive" branch will have oversight over the health-care system and this is not even part of the "Legislative" articles.
And no one give me that "not national health care just regulation" crap because this is far reaching, either way!
Last edited: