Please Enlighten Me about the Constitution.

[Guest GimpyLeg]

Having read many, many posts about fervent support of the 2nd Amendment (which I do) from many vocal TGO'ers, I was wondering how you would justify by the Constitution Social Security, Welfare and Healthcare?

As a society, are we morally or legally responsible for the well-being of all people that make up the United States? Are we morally or legally responsible to take care of and defend those who cannot take care of or defend themselves?

Please help me to see the light, because I do not believe that the Constitution gives any authority to the .gov to provide, say, Healthcare. Healthcare is something you must pay for, and yes, if you cannot afford that "life-saving" surgery or treatment, what gives you the authority or right to compel me to help you out? What if you cannot afford food for you and your family? Is it the fed.gov's responsibility to take from me to give to you? If so, please show me in the Constitution.

If my laptop gets a virus or malware and I lose all of my data and get my identity stolen, should I have known not to click on "big-boobies".com, or that I needed anit-virus and malware protection and not surf unprotected, or should the fed.gov make sure I have the latest protection and collect from all of you the funds to replace what I got stolen?

No, I am not a beast and I do have a heart and compassion, but if you can bend the "rules" for one circumstance, where do you stop?

[TNTitan]

Are you asking a question? or just waxing rhetorically?

No, the constitution does not provide governmental healthcare for americans.

[Guest KarlS]

The democrats try to push this through under "General Welfare" They truely believe healthcare is our constitutional right, but they are wrong!

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

The Constitution doesn't say the "general welfare of the citizens of the United States." It says "general Welfare of the United States." This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project -- including health care!

Edited November 9, 2009 by KarlS
sp

[LagerHead]

In addition, the preamble says "promote the general welfare" not "provide the general welfare." I believe this wording is intentional as it clearly states they will "provide for the common defense."

[Defender]

In addition, the preamble says "promote the general welfare" not "provide the general welfare." I believe this wording is intentional as it clearly states they will "provide for the common defense."

That pretty much sums it up!

[Guest jackdm3]

Clicking on "big-boobies".com should have no untowardly effects. You see I ... err ...

:foot:

[Guest Muttling]

Acts and Ammendments are two VERY different things.

An ammendment is directly part of the constitution and VERY hard to get passed. The 1st, the 2nd, etc. are a direct part of the constitution and are the "supreme law of the land".

Acts are laws that are passed, but can be brought into question as to whether or not they are constitutional.

If a law is passed and you don't think it promotes the general welfare or is otherwise unconstitutional, then you can test it's constitutionality in court.

An ammendment CAN'T be tested in court as it is part of the "supreme law of the land". An ammendment can only be overturned by being repealed by another ammendment to the constitution.

Social Security, the EPA, Welfare, Medicare, the FBI, the ATF, the CDC, the TVA, and MORE have been created by Acts. These are created by laws which can be questioned in court on the basis of their constitutionality.

The Right to Bear Arms is a direct part of the constitution just as the Freedom to Religion and the Freedom to Free Speach. The only way to repeal that right is to get an ammendment to the constitution passed which revokes it or get an interpertation of the Constitution through the Supreme Court which drastically changes how it's interperted.

The bottom line here is that the constitution (including it's ammendments) is the "supreme law of the land". Acts are laws that are subservient to the constitution and can be overturned if they don't comply with the constitution.

[Smith]

Acts and Ammendments are two VERY different things.

An ammendment is directly part of the constitution and VERY hard to get passed. The 1st, the 2nd, etc. are a direct part of the constitution and are the "supreme law of the land".

Acts are laws that are passed, but can be brought into question as to whether or not they are constitutional.

If a law is passed and you don't think it promotes the general welfare or is otherwise unconstitutional, then you can test it's constitutionality in court.

An ammendment CAN'T be tested in court as it is part of the "supreme law of the land". An ammendment can only be overturned by being repealed by another ammendment to the constitution.

Social Security, the EPA, Welfare, Medicare, the FBI, the ATF, the CDC, the TVA, and MORE have been created by Acts. These are created by laws which can be questioned in court on the basis of their constitutionality.

The Right to Bear Arms is a direct part of the constitution just as the Freedom to Religion and the Freedom to Free Speach. The only way to repeal that right is to get an ammendment to the constitution passed which revokes it or get an interpertation of the Constitution through the Supreme Court which drastically changes how it's interperted.

The bottom line here is that the constitution (including it's ammendments) is the "supreme law of the land". Acts are laws that are subservient to the constitution and can be overturned if they don't comply with the constitution.

Good point. The question becomes what to do when we have Acts that are not constitutional or built around faulty Constitutional theory.

Correct answer is repeal them, but what to do when they have become ingrained in the culture?

[Guest Muttling]

Good point. The question becomes what to do when we have Acts that are not constitutional or built around faulty Constitutional theory.

Correct answer is repeal them, but what to do when they have become ingrained in the culture?

Put them to the test in the courts. The supreme court doesn't always go with what is engrained in the culture and desegregation would be a prime example of this.

However, getting law tested in the courts then running it all the way to the Supreme court is a long and EXPENSIVE process.

Even if you get to the level where you can submit an appeal to the Supreme Court, they aren't required to hear it. They can choose to not hear it and let the last appellette court's ruling stand without comment.

A great example of an ongoing legal battle of this nature is the argument that Federal income taxes are unconstitutional. While it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court in recent years, this one has a terrific history and is quite similar to the question raised by the OP.

[Smith]

Put them to the test in the courts. The supreme court doesn't always go with what is engrained in the culture and desegregation would be a prime example of this.

However, getting law tested in the courts then running it all the way to the Supreme court is a long and EXPENSIVE process.

Even if you get to the level where you can submit an appeal to the Supreme Court, they aren't required to hear it. They can choose to not hear it and let the last appellette court's ruling stand without comment.

A great example of an ongoing legal battle of this nature is the argument that Federal income taxes are unconstitutional. While it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court in recent years, this one has a terrific history and is quite similar to the question raised by the OP.

While I agree with you, I think the thought process is endemic of where we are (not personally directed at you Mut;) in allowing bad Constitutional theory as a rule. The Supreme Court, Constitutionally speaking, isn't the ultimate rule of law. It is simply one check that has become the last rule. Very sad time we are in.

Practically speaking you are correct, however.

[Guest Muttling]

While I agree with you, I think the thought process is endemic of where we are (not personally directed at you Mut;) in allowing bad Constitutional theory as a rule. The Supreme Court, Constitutionally speaking, isn't the ultimate rule of law. It is simply one check that has become the last rule. Very sad time we are in.

Practically speaking you are correct, however.

I am in agreement with you my friend and take no offense.

The Supreme Court is the last check by design, that's how the founding fathers intended it.

However, I don't think they envisioned the cumbersome process that we have arrived it. Just look to the death penalty. It is litterally MORE expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to give him a life sentence because of all the appeals that will be filed and most of them will be filed to the Supreme Court level who will refuse to hear them.

It's quite a cumbersome system we have, but it does work. As I have heard it put before, Democracy is the most god awful thing man ever created but we haven't found anything better. Peace my brother.

[Smith]

It does indeed work, but we have made it much more complicated than it needs or should be.

[Guest GimpyLeg]

So what you are saying is that, even if only a theory, we could have a group of law makers that will knowingly pass a law that could or would be ruled unconstitutional, betting that John Q. Public will not have the resolve to see the challenge through to possibly be heard and/or overturned by the SCOTUS.

If for no other reason, we should be much more careful and thoughtful in electing our law makers and public officials at all levels. To protect and defend the Constitution should be a much higher priority when we go to the ballot box. I fear that it has become the norm, in my lifetime and prior, for law makers to pass laws that are questionable when bumped up against the Constitution. No more so, in my political awareness timeframe, than this bunch in right now.

[Guest Muttling]

You're close, but it's not as bad as it sounds. Both the Senate and the House take constitionality very seriously. They do consider this aspect for all Acts that come to a vote and it is often debated.

However, the clause saying "the general welfare of the United States" paints a very broad constitutional stroke that allows for the creation of the EPA, the TVA, the CDC, etc.

Frankly, it's going to be a very hard battle to argue that a nationalized health care system is not constitutional. Not quite as hard as the argument against the Federal Income Tax, but pretty close.

Voting and watching your elected officials are a far better course of action.

Speaking of unconstitutional, how the hell is 40 years of deficit spending (with a few exceptions during the Clinton administration) constitutional? Our spending habits are a pot of oil that has been slowly brought to a boil and most voters aren't serious enough about it to put it to an end. Economics broke the Soviets and we're on the same path.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Muttling

[Smith]

So what you are saying is that, even if only a theory, we could have a group of law makers that will knowingly pass a law that could or would be ruled unconstitutional, betting that John Q. Public will not have the resolve to see the challenge through to possibly be heard and/or overturned by the SCOTUS.

If for no other reason, we should be much more careful and thoughtful in electing our law makers and public officials at all levels. To protect and defend the Constitution should be a much higher priority when we go to the ballot box. I fear that it has become the norm, in my lifetime and prior, for law makers to pass laws that are questionable when bumped up against the Constitution. No more so, in my political awareness timeframe, than this bunch in right now.

Yep that is it. The knock on democracy/republics has always been that the people will eventually vote themselves into bankruptcy by violating Constitutional principle in favor of personal interest.

We need to be more concerned about preserving Constitutional principle than how we can play the margins for personal gain. Or you can put it in these terms, the letter of the law is less important than the principle of the law. This is how legalism hurts America. Our strength has become our weakness.

[Guest Muttling]

Yep that is it. The knock on democracy/republics has always been that the people will eventually vote themselves into bankruptcy by violating Constitutional principle in favor of personal interest.

+1

[Guest GimpyLeg]

Mut, I don't believe that "promote the general welfare" is as broad a stroke as our elected officials convince themselves it is. And, your statement about "a very hard battle to argue that a nationalized health care system is not constitutional" is what I was refering to about John Q. Public's resolve. I tend to think the welfare of the people lies more in the States and the People's realms.

(Darn. I threw many more "I believe's" and "I think's" in there that I wanted to when I started the thread!)

[Guest GimpyLeg]

Yep that is it. The knock on democracy/republics has always been that the people will eventually vote themselves into bankruptcy by violating Constitutional principle in favor of personal interest.

me too.. +1

[MikeW]

+1

+2

[Guest Muttling]

Mut, I don't believe that "promote the general welfare" is as broad a stroke as our elected officials convince themselves it is. And, your statement about "a very hard battle to argue that a nationalized health care system is not constitutional" is what I was refering to about John Q. Public's resolve. I tend to think the welfare of the people lies more in the States and the People's realms.

(Darn. I threw many more "I believe's" and "I think's" in there that I wanted to when I started the thread!)

I am staying very legalistic in my posts here. I am more looking at the aspect of what can be done and what the Supreme Court will uphold.

From a legal perspective, I find it very hard to argue that a nationalized health care system is unconstitutional. You might not like it, just as you might not like Social Security.

Personally, I don't like the absence of the 2nd Ammendment in the Fair Housing Act when the rest of the Bill of Rights is included. However, that is not where the law stands today.

If you want to beat nationalized health care, you need to do it before the legislation passes as I don't see the Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional.

Now to step away from the legal issues and look more to my opinion....

If you want to address the problem then killing the legislation is only putting the problem off the same way that has been done for 20+ years. You need to say no to nationalization but also offer a solution that the impending failure of our health care system. (A failure that both parties admit is coming if we don't come up with a solution.)

Riding the wave behind that failure is the failure of Social Security (the biggest Ponzie Scheme in the history of mankind.)

Warnings of these problems have been around since the Reagan era, but both parties were more interested in getting re-elected than confronting the problems. Time is quickly running out and the cost of paying to fix these problems are on an exponential growth curve. Not fixing them will lead to an even bigger collapse. All of this expense in a time of 2 wars.

These problems are like root canals. Fixing them won't be painless, but not fixing them will be FAR more painful.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Muttling

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

I just think we have elected officials who will gladly bend the constitution to their own ends and a supreme court who is reluctant to try hot button issues and set some precedence. Look at the Heller decision. It had a whole section explaining how they weren't trying to set a precedent.

We have a government who does not hold the constitution in very high regard. But hey, we voted them in (as a country)

Speaking of unconstitutional, how the hell is 40 years of deficit spending (with a few exceptions during the Clinton administration) constitutional? Our spending habits are a pot of oil that has been slowly brought to a boil and most voters aren't serious enough about it to put it to an end. Economics broke the Soviets and we're on the same path.

I'm not targeting you Muttling, but the Clinton surplus is a myth. All he did to get a surplus was borrow from SS and other programs instead of the Fed. Since the surplus/deficit figure was based on money borrowed from sources outside the government, it was considered a surplus.

More at The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

[Guest Muttling]

I just think we have elected officials who will gladly bend the constitution to their own ends and a supreme court who is reluctant to try hot button issues and set some precedence. Look at the Heller decision. It had a whole section explaining how they weren't trying to set a precedent.

We have a government who does not hold the constitution in very high regard. But hey, we voted them in (as a country)

I'm not targeting you Muttling, but the Clinton surplus is a myth. All he did to get a surplus was borrow from SS and other programs instead of the Fed. Since the surplus/deficit figure was based on money borrowed from sources outside the government, it was considered a surplus.

More at The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

No he didn't. He veto'd the budgets that were sent to him and shut down non-essential government operations on several occassions to make Congress come up with a balanced budget. Name one other president who has had the courage to do that.

That's the good part. The bad part is that he did it on the budget of the military (the only big ticket item that is not an entitlement and can be cut.)

Go to more reliable and less partisan sources for your data. FactCheck.org is the group that Dick Chenney quoted in the debates as a good source of information and here's what they have to say about Clinton's budget years.

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

[Guest jackdm3]

Oooh, A FIGHT!

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[Guest jth_3s]

Sadly over time the Constitution has become nothing more than a historical document that the Government follows when it benefits them. The Patriot Act, Bailouts, AWB, warrentless wiretapping, and the Government Health Care deal, internment of Japanese Citizens, suspension of habeus corpus, abuse of eminent domain, going to war without war being declared by congress, and the Federal Reserve Act are just a few on a long list of major violations.

[Semiauto]

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified April 8, 1913:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The argument against income taxes ended with our great-grandparents.

FWIW, the argument at the time was that only the top 1% would pay it.