Obama in bed with Insurance Co.
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
Quote from pspr:
Maybe you should go live in Cuba for a while. You'll love it there if you love socialism.
The US government regulates enough that I would rather live here.I would prefer to live in a 2013 Cuba over a 1900 United States
The private sector has been handling healthcare since the country began, that is indisputable PROOF that it can and was handling it.. what are you talking about?
As for the General Welfare clause:
âWith respect to the two words âgeneral welfare,â I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.â
"It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please and then that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the "general welfare", it would be absurd, to say the least, to supersede a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, etc. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumerations which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited as heretofore supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all."
- James Madison "the Father of the Constitution"
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please . . . . Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence
So with all due respect, your willfully ignorant opinion doesn't mean much when perhaps the most prominent Founders who helped WRITE and RATIFY our Founding documents, so fucking clearly disagree.
Numerous States with numerous delegates ratified the Constitution,not just the founding fathers.The Constitution as a whole isn't based on the opinion of Madison and Jefferson .The first constitution was the Articles of Confederation with more states rights and less federal government and was rejected and replaced with the current constitution that gave more power to the federal government.The delegates that ratified the constitution could have interpreted the general welfare clause the same way I and many others do and only ratified it based on their interpretation of it.The majority of Congress disagreed with Madison's interpretation of the general welfare clause while he was president and passed a public works bill that he had to veto along with 4 other bills,the most up to that point.The constitution is based on the opinions of all the people who voted to ratify it,not just Madison and Jefferson.The Constitution says that when there is disagreement The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not.Numerous Presidents,Congressmen and Supreme Courts Justices have agreed that government has a right to be involved in healthcare
30 million without healthcare,healthcare bills being the # 1 cause of bankruptcy,millions of people not able to get insurance because of pre existing conditions,the emergency room the only healthcare option for millions of people etc isn't properly handling health care imo
A little history is dangerous.
The Constitution in no way says this that the Sp Court has right to nullify law made by Congress.
The Supreme Court made that law up in Marbury Vs. Madison.
The Supreme Court has also at time have struck down nullification by the states. Interestingly it seems the Federalist papers state that the Sup Ct does not have the exclusive right to nullify federal govt over reaching. But that states have a duty to so also.
I am sensing that there are a few states ready to go for it again. And they just may nullify the Sup Ct decision if it goes against them too.
I think the Feds had best be careful. They could cause a serious constitutional crisis.
I guess that is why DHS is getting all loaded up.
The Constitution in no way says this that the Sp Court has right to nullify law made by Congress.
The Supreme Court made that law up in Marbury Vs. Madison.
The Supreme Court has also at time have struck down nullification by the states. Interestingly it seems the Federalist papers state that the Sup Ct does not have the exclusive right to nullify federal govt over reaching. But that states have a duty to so also.
I am sensing that there are a few states ready to go for it again. And they just may nullify the Sup Ct decision if it goes against them too.
I think the Feds had best be careful. They could cause a serious constitutional crisis.
I guess that is why DHS is getting all loaded up.
ALL of the Founders who ratified the Constitution that these men wrote, agreed with it OR THEY WOULDN'T HAVE RATIFIED IT. To say that they don't know what the rules are is impossibly stupid. THEY MADE THE FUCKING RULES. They CREATED this country. There is nothing to 'interpret' in this matter. The reality that some in govt don't want to follow these rules and break them when they can, even with SC approval, doesn't make it Constitutional. Sorry, that's called corruption. You have to be a straight up liar to try and justify an 'interpretation' of a document which its creators specifically have called bullshit.
I tried to give you an example before to express the flaws in your silly arguments. Here's another one. Let's say Congress passed a law that outlawed all religion, and got SC approval. I think that you'll agree that is a blatant, indefensible violation of the 1st Amendment. So it doesn't fucking matter that it might actually happen, what matters is it isn't legal for the govt to do that according to the Constitution.