Healthcare....again

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1925767' date='Jul 20 2009, 05:24 PM']Better not let LD see this thread [/quote]

[add]

[quote name='apparently' post='1925132' date='Jul 19 2009, 08:37 PM']"egregious flaw"

"Obamacare is the greatest threat ever to the lives and wellness of unborn children and their mothers since Roe v. Wade was rendered in 1973," said Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Smith noted that a study by the Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute showed that the widened availability of abortion through government funding increases the number of unborn children killed by 20%-35%.

"Obamacare opens the spigot of public funding and does more to facilitate abortion than any action since Roe. This is the big one!" said Smith.[/quote]
Seriously, if you could get free life saving health care would you use it if it meant being part of Obamacare’s plan to not only provided but encourage the barbaric practice of aborting perfectly healthy human beings, In order to get the free coverage.
In a very real way, you will.

Edited July 21, 2009 by apparently

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1926084' date='Jul 20 2009, 10:48 PM']The General Welfare Clause was never meant to mean that Congress could just spend money on whatever it wanted, it only meant that Congress could spend money on those items that are specifically enumerated in Section 8. James Madison (who was the principle author of the Constitution and is considered the Father of the document) anticipated that people would blow the General Welfare Clause out of proportion, take it out of its original context and use it as an excuse so that Congress could spend on anything it deemed fit to be the "general welfare". With that said, there are numerous occasions of him consistently debunking such an interpretation of the general welfare clause and being opposed to near limitless congressional spending, and I'll list them here for further clarification:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."-James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”-James Madison

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."- James Madison, The Federalist # 45

“With respect to the two words "general welfare," 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." -James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars” –James Madison, The Federalist # 41

"To refer the power in question to the clause ‘to provide for common defense and general welfare’ would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms ‘common defense and general welfare’ embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust." -President James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817

"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 super add a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, &c. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all.” –James Madison, Speech in Congress, February 6, 1792

The bottom line is that if something is not specifically located in the enumerated powers of section 8, Congress can't do it, can't spend on it, can't carry it out etc. But wit the onset of FDR's presidency, that notion was thrown out and has been the precedent to this very day. Once that took place, Pandora's box was flung wide open and now nothing can stop Congress from spending on virtually anything it wants and deems in the "general welfare", seeing that it is the sole arbiter and interpreter of what exactly is in the general welfare.

Madison foresaw all of this and warned against it, but nobody listened and look what's happening now. Congress is out of control and we now have a 1,000,000,000,000,000 dollar deficit and an 11,000,000,000,000 dollar debt (ya, you read right, 12 zeros, which is utterly mind boggling), and they're both climbing. And don't get me wrong, Republican's and Democrats alike are the both to blame for the out of control spending.[/quote]


[quote name='Hassan' post='1926127' date='Jul 20 2009, 11:31 PM']That's simply false. To begin with FDR used the commerce clause to justify many of it's programs. perhaps you don't like just how far they stretched it, but that is quite distinct from the notion simply being "thrown out". Things can stop congress, in fact the Reinquest court slapped congress back quite a few times. Congress is not, never has been, and never will be the sole arbiter and interpreter of anything in the constitution.[/quote]


i mean, it's a compelling policy argument that it should be limited to just what's in that section. anything else allows Congress to effectively nullify it's limited role. and you've shown good statutory history for it. but, i know many look at history with much suspicion. it's like, if the text is clear, we defer to that. it seems pretty clear to me. i do't see that it's limited by teh text itself.
i ownder if there's any opposing history there against hte view they can spend whatever they want.
but if the text is clear enough though, it seems many a conservative would want to look past it only when it suits their agenda, eg, here.
also, if it's debateable what the text means, it seems we should defer to congress instead of judicial law making. i guess there's an argument that states are being deprived their proper role, but. i'd argue they knew what they were getting into when they did the constittuion. the burden is on them to change it, as many conservative like to argue- it's appliable here too, for the sake of consistency.
whatever hte case, i am seeing how decent views per the constitution can arise, and be different, more clearly.

i always thought they only allowed commerce exansion during those early 1900s. it might've included spending etc too, not sure.

Edited July 22, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[reelguy227]

I'm not sure what you're getting at dairygirl...? Are you agree or disagreeing with me?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm disagreeing, but find you have some compelling arguments.

there's the issue of sorting out one's philsophy in all this, that makse me hesitate. i think i disagree, but i'm afraid i do what i accuse others of, namely being inconsistent in interpreting X law like in this debate v. Y law in another area---- just justifying my predispositions.
that's why i hedge.

btw this fro0m my recent post is suppose to say:
"i wonder if there's any opposing history there against hte view they can['t] spend whatever they want."

Edited July 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually-- i'm disagreeing with you more, now that i read it closer

i was wondering:
is it "congrss has the power to raise money, to create post offices etc" or is it more like "congress has to power to raise money to create post offices" etc. but reading the powers delineated, it says that congress can 'constitute inferior courts" etc, things that don't seem to indicate a limitation on its spending power.

now i realize that the text doesn't limit congreses spending power.
this is what i was trying to figure out better, i just didn't stop to think about it very long.

i think you might be arguing that the spending powers could only be read with the delineated powers, cause those delineated powers are specifically mentioned and would be the only thing they could spend on.
that's an even more compelling argument.
but i still disagree, cause the most straightforward reading is, they can spend it on what they want for the genral welfare.

referring to legislative history isn't often compelling to jurists, cause it so open to abuse. if that history was unanimous, i for one would be willing to take a good look at it, despite an arguable claim to clarity.
it's not super clear what position is better afterall, textually--- the exact situation where policy and history is warranted to look at.

[reelguy227]

There is an opposing view, and it was stated most of the time by Alexander Hamilton, who after the ratification of the Constitution was James Madison's primary political enemy. But even though there was such an opposing view, I'd be more prone to believe Madison on the issue, seeing that he took a more active role in drafting and creating the Constitution than Hamilton did. Thus, he seems more credible in my eyes.

Edited July 23, 2009 by reelguy227

[dairygirl4u2c]

i mean, even the idea that congress has to look to the constitution to justify its stance, i'm not sure why that's the case.
i just go with it, cause it makes sense given the delineations of that section, and the historical stance etc. and it just makes sense, otherwise it'd be limitless in what it wanted- there's be no claim of right for a state, no power play as is necessary, or at least not eough.

[dairygirl4u2c]

edit:
ad and obvious question i guess i shoulda thought of sooner -- why would they make a list if they didn't mean it to be limited?
i know in legal circles, lists are debate areas. is the list exclusive, or not? in this case, it's pretty obviously exclusive, i guess. there'd be no reason to say "this is an example of all the unlimited power you have"

plus the tenth amendment does say if it's not mentioend here, it goes to you. ? though i do know some say ocngress has more power, and only what it doesn't exercise goes to them- or something to that effect.
it's a little more tortured that's one reason i don't buy those who favor more congressaionl power.
plus i just like the idea of limiting them. it works out nicely.

Edited July 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[reelguy227]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1929000' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:24 PM']edit:
ad and obvious question i guess i shoulda thought of sooner -- why would they make a list if they didn't mean it to be limited?
i know in legal circles, lists are debate areas. is the list exclusive, or not? in this case, it's pretty obviously exclusive, i guess. there'd be no reason to say "this is an example of all the unlimited power you have"[/quote]

That's been exactly my point all along, and something Madison was getting at in the quotes. He was basically saying that it would be utterly pointless to enumerate those powers to Congress if the general welfare clause was granted it the authority to do anything it saw fit to be in the general welfare. Because if that were the case, than there would be no use at all for the enumerated powers.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1929000' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:24 PM']plus the tenth amendment does say if it's not mentioend here, it goes to you. ? though i do know some say ocngress has more power, and only what it doesn't exercise goes to them- or something to that effect.[/quote]


You're right, if the Congress can't do it, the tenth amendment explicitly states that it is left up to states to decide for themselves. That's why issues like abortion, gay marriage and others should all be left to the states to decide, seeing that the Constitution says nothing about them. And whatever a state decides on the issue, as long as it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights and Article 1, Section 10 (which limits what the states can do), becomes law in the state. Although that's how it was original meant to be, but we've come far from the original meaning of the Constitution and the Federal Government has usurped states' rights a number of times.

Edited July 23, 2009 by reelguy227

[dairygirl4u2c]

i know i'd rathre not give them such power to tax.
but it does seem clearer to me.
i tend to lean towards congressional power, than none, even though i don't want too much.

that's the curuse of the law in a nutshell. give an inch, a mile is taken. make a law, too much is restricted, even if they didn't mean to, that's what happens with laws.

i guess an improtant distinction is.... it's unconstitutional when they spend too much, go past the spirit of the law- i would personally agree with that. but, it's not unconstituional even though i disagree with it, deferring to congress- not until they just go way too far. i'm not sure how i'd legally say they've gone too far though, maybe by arguing "general welfare" is now clearly kaput cause of their reckless spending etc.
(they do pretty far now

Edited July 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1929007' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:29 PM']That's been exactly my point all along, and something Madison was getting at in the quotes. He was basically saying that it would be utterly pointless to enumerate those powers to Congress if the general welfare clause was granted it the authority to do anything it saw fit to be in the general welfare. Because if that were the case, than there would be no use at all for the enumerated powers.[/quote]

in my mind i had been thinking, they could tax on what they want, but what they actually have power to "do" is limited.

not even until now do i see your point even more, that you're saying taxing power is effectively any power. eg, if you tax and spend, and create an agency to do thing like 'health czar', that's going too far. violating those delinations, effectively.
i've thought of that, and do find that argument compelling.
but, it seems they can at the least "spend freely" if there's no agencies invovled. as far as agencies-- even though i'd like more agency power, sometimes, i admit it's hard to justify them.

Edited July 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[reelguy227]

I edited my post, just in case you didn't notice.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah i edited mine a little too.

i think if what i say is true--- what i always had nebulously floating in my mind but more explicit now. ie, free spending until it's clearly not 'general welfare', and no agencies beyound what's listed.
then, maybe they could argue something like "welfare (in the sense of a cookie cutter political device, ie hand outs to people in the form of cash) agency is needed so we know what we're spending for". i guess that wuld fly.
but something like "FBI needed to prosecute people", probaly not. (unless allowed by Code, which im not sure it is-- my hope is that it is, or somehting to the effect of the FBI) my point is "doing" things is what is suspect to me.

though i see a slippery slope--- "i need to check out tehse bad guys, or 'engage' (ie, effectively "do') these things, so i can see if i can spend my money on it"
yeah.
interesting.

Edited July 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[reelguy227]

Ya, but like I said before, Congress can only spend its money on those enumerated powers.

And, exactly do you mean by "no agencies beyond what's listed"? I'm kind of confused.

Edited July 23, 2009 by reelguy227