PDA

View Full Version : The Health Insurance Mandate and the Founding Fathers



Kevin Olsen
04-02-2012, 11:22 AM
Conservative opposition to the law centers around the individual mandate to buy insurance. Last week my local newspaper ran an editorial by Republican Congressman Scott Garrett in which he argues that:

"...At the heart of this act is the individual mandate, which holds that the federal government can require citizens to purchase health insurance......Such a law is unprecedented, unnecessary, unlimited and, above all else, unconstitutional. Never before has the federal government required people to buy a good or service..."

You all of course are familiar with the argument and there is no need to elaborate here.

Garrett however goes on to say that:

"...The Founders, who fought for liberty through the blood, sweat and tears brought by years of war — and remained suspicious of a strong, centralized government—would be surprised to learn that the U.S. Constitution authorized the federal government to pursue expansive powers antithetical to the principles of personal freedom. They would not, however, be surprised to learn that a future administration would claim these powers..."

Garrett's invocation of the founding generation is interesting but he forget a few small details. Hospitals were a new concept in the late 1700's. Dr. Benjamin Rush, the country's leading physician, still believed in bleeding patients. Skilled nursing was unknown. There were no drug suppliers and pharmacists mixed their own prescriptions. There was no reliable anesthesia, treatments for tuberculosis, cardiac surgery, or chemotherapy.

I have to ask if Thomas Jefferson would have opposed the health care mandate when five of his six children by his wife did not survive to adulthood. Would he still have rejected it after seeing his wife die?

What I find even more interesting as a history buff is that conservatives forget that there was a debate over an intrusive, individual mandate during the 1700s. I refer of course to the smallpox vaccine. The Smallpox vaccine was available but it was a dangerous and unpleasant experience. Although the Germ Theory of disease would not be common until a century later, both the medical community and the public knew that getting vaccinated would protect a person's health. The dangers of the vaccine made mandatory vaccination politically impossible but John and Abigail Adams both were vaccinated as were their children. George Washington wrote in 1777 that, "If I was a Member of that Assembly, I would rather move for a Law to compel the Masters of Families to inoculate every Child born within a certain limited time under severe Penalties."

Let me repeat the words of George Washington*, "move for a Law to compel"

Any thoughts on this aspect of the debate?

Kevin


*George Washington of course was an unreliable pinko who feared the establishment of a standing army and the perpetuation of a permanent and privileged officer class.

John Smith
04-02-2012, 11:33 AM
As wise as we like to think our founding fathers were, there is no way the could have imagined the changes time would bring.

However, even this is part of the smoke screen that is today's argument over health care. Our government at the local, state, and fedeal levels forces us to buy services from private companies. This ranges from garbage collection to the life jackets we must have on our boats.

In ALL those areas it can be argued that a volunary action by the indidual is required for the government mandate to take affect. Healthcare is different, as no one can volunteer to never need medical attention, surgery, cancer treatments, etc.

This entire debate, IMO, comes down to the question Ron Paul was asked, "Would you let a healthy 30 year of who chose not to buy insurance die if he got seriously ill. Paul did not offer, "Yes, I'd let him die." He did offer the lame argument that the churhes and charities would step forward. That would hardly cut it in most cases.

You cannot get your car towed by your road service if you've not paid your bill. You cannot get your magazine delivered if you've not paid for the subscription. Nothing works that way: why should healthcare?

To answer the question, I'd have to simply guess that our founding fathers would have supported national healthcare as it would most certainly have fallen under the promotion of the publick welfare. Promoting the general welfare is specifically listed as one of the reasons for writing the constitution. I am unable to discern how denying anyone healthcare promotes their welfare.

Concordia 33
04-02-2012, 11:49 AM
As wise as we like to think our founding fathers were, there is no way the could have imagined the changes time would bring.

However, even this is part of the smoke screen that is today's argument over health care. Our government at the local, state, and fedeal levels forces us to buy services from private companies. This ranges from garbage collection to the life jackets we must have on our boats.

In ALL those areas it can be argued that a volunary action by the indidual is required for the government mandate to take affect. Healthcare is different, as no one can volunteer to never need medical attention, surgery, cancer treatments, etc.

This entire debate, IMO, comes down to the question Ron Paul was asked, "Would you let a healthy 30 year of who chose not to buy insurance die if he got seriously ill. Paul did not offer, "Yes, I'd let him die." He did offer the lame argument that the churhes and charities would step forward. That would hardly cut it in most cases.

You cannot get your car towed by your road service if you've not paid your bill. You cannot get your magazine delivered if you've not paid for the subscription. Nothing works that way: why should healthcare?

To answer the question, I'd have to simply guess that our founding fathers would have supported national healthcare as it would most certainly have fallen under the promotion of the publick welfare. Promoting the general welfare is specifically listed as one of the reasons for writing the constitution. I am unable to discern how denying anyone healthcare promotes their welfare.


It is doubtful that they would have approved the way the healthcare law was rammed though both houses, and they probably would not have supported the law as written. Jefferson once said that he believed that no law should be voted on until 1 year after it's last revision, and then after that year it could only be approved as is with no amendments. If there was a situation that a law must be enacted immediately, it would require a 2/3 agreement of the house before the vote on the actual law. He knew that congress frequently made bad decisions and believed that they needed help not acting hastily.

Food is more essential than healthcare, should we pass a law requiring every American to have food insurance too? Shouldn't this law take precedence over healthcare-it is certainly more immediate, and both healthcare and food programs already exist in one form or another in the government. Maybe we need a single payer food insurance bill.

BA.Barcolounger
04-02-2012, 12:16 PM
Militia Acts of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription) every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket), bayonet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet) and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29#History) box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#cite_note-3) Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

Compelled, by law, citizens to purchase particular products.

Concordia 33
04-02-2012, 12:39 PM
Militia Acts of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription) every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket), bayonet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet) and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(firearms)#History) box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#cite_note-3) Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

Compelled, by law, citizens to purchase particular products.


This has been pretty well addressed in at least two other threads that I am aware of, and is not keeping with the topic of this thread.



Apparently, the people at Think Progress believe a requirement to buy health insurance is akin to the requirement under the Second Militia Act of 1792 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) that soldiers equip themselves for duty in case of invasion. The provocative title attached to this insipid argument is "Why George Washington would disagree with the right wing about health care’s constitutionality" (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/23/cuccinelli-washington/).
This is what your father meant when he said a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What does it say about progressives -- or, at least, the sort of progressive who would nod approvingly at such stuff -- that a law enacted when the United States was young and in constant danger from foreign enemies would be cited as precedent for mandated health insurance? It almost reads like a parody of progressivism, with its slipshod conflation of national defense with the welfare state. I'm surprised we haven't heard that health care reform should be treated as "the moral equivalent of war."
For a rebuttal to Think Progress's risible misappropriation of George Washington, I give you... George Washington (http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/milestones/farewell_address_read3.html).

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-02-2012, 12:42 PM
It is doubtful that they would have approved the way the healthcare law was rammed though both houses, and they probably would not have supported the law as written. Jefferson once said that he believed that no law should be voted on until 1 year after it's last revision, and then after that year it could only be approved as is with no amendments. If there was a situation that a law must be enacted immediately, it would require a 2/3 agreement of the house before the vote on the actual law. He knew that congress frequently made bad decisions and believed that they needed help not acting hastily.

Food is more essential than healthcare, should we pass a law requiring every American to have food insurance too? Shouldn't this law take precedence over healthcare-it is certainly more immediate, and both healthcare and food programs already exist in one form or another in the government. Maybe we need a single payer food insurance bill.

I've got this book, "Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788" by Pauline Maier, ISBN 978-0-684-86855-4. which suggests your knowledge of the folks who gave us our constituion is incorrect in the extreme. For instance, the facts show those that were for federalism tried to ram the original document thru' the state assemblies because their opposition has some very potent debaters like Patrick Henry.
The United States Constitution is a political document from first word to last. It is full of accomodations to the various parties in order to get the thing passed. If any party had dug in their heels like today's Tea Party does there would probably be no United States of America.

Historical Note:
Thomas Jefferson took no part in the constitutional debates because he was in France for many years as the ambassador for our Confederation Government.

Concordia 33
04-02-2012, 12:58 PM
I've got this book, "Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788" by Pauline Maier, ISBN 978-0-684-86855-4. which suggests your knowledge of the folks who gave us our constituion is incorrect in the extreme. For instance, the facts show those that were for federalism tried to ram the original document thru' the state assemblies because their opposition has some very potent debaters like Patrick Henry.
The United States Constitution is a political document from first word to last. It is full of accomodations to the various parties in order to get the thing assed. If any party had dug in their heels like today's Tea Party there would probably be no United States of America.

Historical Note:
Thomas Jefferson took no part in the constitutional debates because he was in France for many years as the ambassador for our Confederation Government.

None the less Thomas Jefferson said this - I never claimed he said it as part of the constitutional debates.


As for the founders, they may have forced the Constitution through, but the very force of giving birth to it spoke volumes about how much it should be respected. They would not have wanted its words twisted in the many ways that it is used not to make certain actions constitutional.

TomZ
04-02-2012, 02:58 PM
I don't think the founding fathers envisioned a nationwide military/highway/rail/postal service either - do we need to revisit these too? We all pay taxes for other nationwide systems - highways, schools... why not free clinics/hospitals. you don't need a mandate, just build the d&3m things. provide tuition reimbursement for good doctors. If postal workers can get a better than decent living and retirement, why not public doctors. why give the insurance companies all that money? Does it have to be so difficult? was there this kind of heated debate when we put in the postal system? highway system.

Better yet, just convert those post offices into free clinics... and then watch UPS/Fedex/DHL start their own to compete, now that would be fun.

I am clueless, and I approve this message.

Tom Z

Tom Hunter
04-02-2012, 03:04 PM
I think it is a safe bet that some of them would have opposed mandated insurance and others support it. There were a lot of them.

I do think that if we could some how replace the current congress with a ressurected group of founding fathers that a lot more would get done.

I also think the consitutional arguement is specious. The law already compells you to consume healthcare, if you are knocked out and go to the emergency room, or if you are ruled incompetent, you have no choice but to accept care. Having a law that compells you to pay for it in advance is a sensible, profoundly conservative idea.

SaltyBoatr
04-02-2012, 03:32 PM
And you're absolutely right about it having been a conservative idea, in the first place.

Conservatism has changed of late.

Five of the nine Supreme Court judges seem to be marching lock step with corporatism.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-02-2012, 05:19 PM
None the less Thomas Jefferson said this - I never claimed he said it as part of the constitutional debates.


As for the founders, they may have forced the Constitution through, but the very force of giving birth to it spoke volumes about how much it should be respected. They would not have wanted its words twisted in the many ways that it is used not to make certain actions constitutional.

Wrong again. Your characterization twists the facts all to hell. These were people of conviction who submitted to reality and voted for distasteful things because they knew we needed a better government than we had. In modern terms, "they cut deals"and "they horse traded".
James Madison wanted a complete separation of church and state for the federal government and the states. Since numerous states had official religions that they protected to the bitter end only the federal government was prohibited. Madison went along with it knowing he couldn't prevail.
Any idea that anybody from that era saw the new constitution as "holy writ" is manufacturing history to suit their views.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-02-2012, 05:28 PM
It's a very classic argument: the contentions of the 'originalists', versus the 'Living Constitution' advocates.

The FF's intentionally left the Constitution vague enough to require the establishment of a Supreme Court as a final arbiter of its meaning.... but they placed no constraints on the ability of the Court to redefine the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution in order to fit the needs of the times. Had the ability to amend the Constitution been enough, they wouldn't have had to bother with a Supreme Court, at all.

The Supreme Court was not envisioned as a branch with the power to trump the other branches. That power only came about during the leadership of John Marshall from the adjudication of a case called Marbury v. Madison.
Marshall was a helluva guy.
That case is laid out in the first hour of the video documentary "The Supreme Court".

McMike
04-02-2012, 05:41 PM
Any idea that anybody from that era saw the new constitution as "holy writ" is manufacturing history to suit their views.

An unavoidable truth that is intentionally ignored out of convenience, IMO.

SaltyBoatr
04-02-2012, 06:35 PM
http://thecomicnews.com/images/edtoons/2012/0328/health/01.jpg

John Smith
04-02-2012, 06:36 PM
It is doubtful that they would have approved the way the healthcare law was rammed though both houses, and they probably would not have supported the law as written. Jefferson once said that he believed that no law should be voted on until 1 year after it's last revision, and then after that year it could only be approved as is with no amendments. If there was a situation that a law must be enacted immediately, it would require a 2/3 agreement of the house before the vote on the actual law. He knew that congress frequently made bad decisions and believed that they needed help not acting hastily.

Food is more essential than healthcare, should we pass a law requiring every American to have food insurance too? Shouldn't this law take precedence over healthcare-it is certainly more immediate, and both healthcare and food programs already exist in one form or another in the government. Maybe we need a single payer food insurance bill.
I disagree. I doubt they would have approved of the present senate filibuster rules.

John Smith
04-02-2012, 06:44 PM
I don't think the founding fathers envisioned a nationwide military/highway/rail/postal service either - do we need to revisit these too? We all pay taxes for other nationwide systems - highways, schools... why not free clinics/hospitals. you don't need a mandate, just build the d&3m things. provide tuition reimbursement for good doctors. If postal workers can get a better than decent living and retirement, why not public doctors. why give the insurance companies all that money? Does it have to be so difficult? was there this kind of heated debate when we put in the postal system? highway system.

Better yet, just convert those post offices into free clinics... and then watch UPS/Fedex/DHL start their own to compete, now that would be fun.

I am clueless, and I approve this message.

Tom Z

I'm even more sure they never envisioned airports.

They did, however, envision a federal government with the responsibility to promote the general wellfare. Prevening/curing disease would seem to fall under that umbrella.

I can see a variety of paths the court can take either to uphold the mandate or claim it's unconstitutional.

All I do know is, all I am sure of is, the federal government has waved money at the states setting those states to meet certain criteria in order to get the money (the stimulus had criteria in it), and the federal government has mandated individuals to purchase things, be they insurances for job loss or disability, or retirement income, or those safety items the Coast Guard requires us to keep on board our vessels.

To the extent there is a difference between any of these items and health care, health care is the only one in which you cannot opt out of by choice.

Would it surprise anyone here if the court came to a unanimous decision that this mandate is constitutional based on the uniqueness of health care in this respect, and the decision of the court applies solely to that area of human endeavor?

I'd be no less surpised by such a decision than I'd be surprised by a 5-4 vote simply saying it's unconstitutional.

John Smith
04-02-2012, 07:04 PM
I hadn't thought of that, but you're right...they COULD decide that the circumstances are exceptional enough to permit the mandate.

Remember, in 2000, they explicitly said that their decision in Bush v. Gore shouldn't be considered a precedent. It looks like they have a precedent in making decisions not intended to be precedents, thermselves.

Exactly. I had referenced Gore v Bush in a previous post or two.

If one listened to the three days of arguments, one found some pretty poor lawyering for such an important subject. I would like to believe that as much as the justices are armed with their individual ideologies, they will also be well armed with the facts, including how the insured pay higher premiums (involuntarily) to help pay for treatment the uninsured get.

This is an extremely complex issue, and I was surprised at how much of a role symantics play. If the Court deems the mandate/fine a "tax", as I understand it, they cannot make a ruling on it yet, as a tax cannot be appealed until AFTER it has gone into affect. That is the significance of the day one argument.

They could decide that, in practical terms, it is a tax. That would make day two's arguments moot. My impression, listening to day one, is that this bill could have given everyone a health care tax, and relieve them of that tax upon proof of having health insurance. That would put us in the same place, but no appeal would be possible until 2015.

The lousy analogies I hear discouraged me, but the justices will be discussing this among themselves, and perhaps find some better ones.

After all their discussions and debates among themselves, it remains healthcare is the one endeavor of human activity that you cannot opt out of needing. While we can choose to not have a boat, ride a motorcycle, or drive a car, etc.... where we are required to buy things, we cannot choose not to have a heart attack.

I hope someone looks at this from the other direction. If we are going to treat the free riders, why should we not all be free riders?

One of the things that worries me, as I remember 2000, is the extent to which their decision will, in their individual opinions, impact the 2012 election impact their decision.

They may punt: decide this is a tax, and they cannot rule on it yet.

BA.Barcolounger
04-02-2012, 07:29 PM
This has been pretty well addressed in at least two other threads that I am aware of, and is not keeping with the topic of this thread.
Apparently, the people at Think Progress believe a requirement to buy health insurance is akin to the requirement under the Second Militia Act of 1792 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) that soldiers equip themselves for duty in case of invasion. The provocative title attached to this insipid argument is "Why George Washington would disagree with the right wing about health care’s constitutionality" (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/23/cuccinelli-washington/).
This is what your father meant when he said a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What does it say about progressives -- or, at least, the sort of progressive who would nod approvingly at such stuff -- that a law enacted when the United States was young and in constant danger from foreign enemies would be cited as precedent for mandated health insurance? It almost reads like a parody of progressivism, with its slipshod conflation of national defense with the welfare state. I'm surprised we haven't heard that health care reform should be treated as "the moral equivalent of war."

So, according to that, federal mandates are OK if there is a pressing national need?

wardd
04-02-2012, 08:04 PM
wasn't the constitution amended by the civil war?

RonW
04-02-2012, 09:00 PM
Cuyahoga the Chuck .......post # 6.....


Historical Note:
Thomas Jefferson took no part in the constitutional debates because he was in France for many years as the ambassador for our Confederation Government.

Aww Chuckie, I had to login just to let you know that your constitutional scholarship must have been learned in ohio, way up north where the liberals roam.......or did the nuns teach you the wrong stuff ?

Try -- Benjamin Franklin.......

Joe Dupere
04-02-2012, 09:35 PM
Cuyahoga the Chuck .......post # 6.....



Aww Chuckie, I had to login just to let you know that your constitutional scholarship must have been learned in ohio, way up north where the liberals roam.......or did the nuns teach you the wrong stuff ?

Try -- Benjamin Franklin.......

Okay, I'll take a stab at this. Benjamin Franklin was US Minister Plenipotentiary to France from 1778 to 1785. Thomas Jefferson was US Minister Plenipotentiary to France from 1785 to 1789. The US Constitution was written in 1787 and then ratified by 11 states. The new government assembled and met in 1789.

I think Chuck was correct and that you are in need of education by some nuns.

stevebaby
04-02-2012, 09:41 PM
Cuyahoga the Chuck .......post # 6.....



Aww Chuckie, I had to login just to let you know that your constitutional scholarship must have been learned in ohio, way up north where the liberals roam.......or did the nuns teach you the wrong stuff ?

Try -- Benjamin Franklin.......
"He resigned from Congress when he was appointed as minister to France in May 1784.
Memorial plaque on the Champs-Élysées, Paris, France, marking where Jefferson lived while he was Minister to France.
Memorial plaque marking where Jefferson lived while he was Minister to France.

The widower Jefferson, still in his 40s, was minister to France from 1785 to 1789, the year the French Revolution started. When the French foreign minister, the Count de Vergennes, commented to Jefferson, "You replace Monsieur Franklin, I hear," Jefferson replied, "I succeed him. No man can replace him."[64]

Beginning in early September 1785, Jefferson collaborated with John Adams, US minister in London, to outline an anti-piracy treaty with Morocco. Their work culminated in a treaty that was ratified by Congress on July 18, 1787. Still in force today, it is the longest unbroken treaty relationship in U.S. history.[65] Busy in Paris, Jefferson did not return to the US for the 1787 Constitutional Convention."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Member_of_Congress_and_Minister_t o_France

Keith Wilson
04-02-2012, 09:51 PM
In the late 1700s, most things a doctor did were as likely to make you worse as to make you better. Leeches, anyone? Asking what the "founding fathers" would have thought about modern health insurance is about as useful as asking their opinion on quantum mechanics.

It's just heartwarming how some folks are so passionate about defending their fellow citizens' (never their own) precious god-given inalienable right to go without health insurance, to forego necessary medical care, and be bankrupted by medical bills. Inspiring, and in the best American traditions, that you would want 30 million people to not have heath insurance because of a constitutional technicality.

RonW
04-03-2012, 07:55 AM
History is fun and interesting and I am sure we can get more wrong facts then correct facts.
But are we now to believe that these founding fathers sat down over a couple month period and pounded out a constitution to form a more perfect union 4 years later after the revolutionary war ended. I don't think so..

The seeds of discontent started in the 1760's over a tyrannical King and his so called government.
The bill of rights was not ratified till 1791 although it started much earlier, thus giving us a time period of more like
25 years which is plenty of time for all to argue and debate on what role a new government should and should not play
in the new nation.

A link showing the time frame of the events to 1787 and how much thought and debate actually went into this document.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/revwartimeline.htm

And when we take a look at the bill of rights, we end up with a limiting of power (again) to the federal government.
Which is also stated in the constitution as to exactly what the powers of the federal government are, and are not..
Thus the Obama care mandate.......


he Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Keith Wilson -
It's just heartwarming how some folks are so passionate about defending their fellow citizens' (never their own) precious god-given inalienable right to go without health insurance, to forego necessary medical care, and be bankrupted by medical bills. Inspiring, and in the best American traditions, that you would want 30 million people to not have heath insurance because of a constitutional technicality.

Your argument breaks down to you want insurance (for your personal financial security), but you want everyone to have it so your cost is cheaper, the same as norm's argument of pre-existing conditions.
So you want uncle sam to use the big stick to make the rest of us fall in line with your way of thinking.
That is not freedom, but tyranny.....
Reminds me of John Smith wanting the churches to pay property taxes so his property taxes will be cheaper.
Sounds to me like the liberal/progressive movement is a very selfish movement....

RonW
04-03-2012, 08:30 AM
Norm -
If welfare recipients are lazy bums feeding off the taxpayer tit, then what do you call uninsured people?

Self insured............

You are entitled to liberty,freedom and the pursuit of happiness........

You are not entitled to a free library card and a cell phone and if you can't afford one, the state will provide you with one at a cost to the other cell phone users. Shall we call this a subsidy,taxation without representation, or tyranny..?

Concordia 33
04-03-2012, 08:52 AM
Are you entitled to free health care if you're not inusred?

We're a civilized people. We don't throw sick people out of the emergency room, if they can't afford the care.

Nonetheless, we DO pay for their care.

The only question is this: should we have a health care system where people can avoid having to pay for care that virtually everyone will need, so they can get the rest of us to pay for it?

That is the system we have now; every household in the country pays around $1000 in taxes, just to treat those without health insurance. You're already paying this cost, and you've been paying it for years.

What is the 'conservative' solution to this problem? Continue to pay for the freeloaders?

People need food too. Should we have an individual mandate for food insurance? I would argue that food is higher up on our basic hierarchy of needs than access to healthcare. Maybe this should be resolved first.

Jim Mahan
04-03-2012, 08:55 AM
Maybe we need a single payer food insurance bill.

You mean maybe we need a federal law to make sure no one in our most abundant, wealthiest nation goes hungry. What a travesty of the constitution that would be.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-03-2012, 08:55 AM
Cuyahoga the Chuck .......post # 6.....



Aww Chuckie, I had to login just to let you know that your constitutional scholarship must have been learned in ohio, way up north where the liberals roam.......or did the nuns teach you the wrong stuff ?

Try -- Benjamin Franklin.......

You didn't read the book, did you? I gave you the bibliography and all you came back with is your Disneyland version of history. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw what you dream up.

Concordia 33
04-03-2012, 09:04 AM
You mean maybe we need a federal law to make sure no one in our most abundant, wealthiest nation goes hungry. What a travesty of the constitution that would be.

But no worse of a justification than that for healthcare - in fact it is a better justification. Shouldn't we start with hunger if anything? Why healthcare - your health doesn't much matter if the health problem is malnutrition. Maybe the government should nationalize farms, food processing and grocery store chains, and manage our nutritional needs for us.

wardd
04-03-2012, 09:09 AM
Norm -

Self insured............

You are entitled to liberty,freedom and the pursuit of happiness........

You are not entitled to a free library card and a cell phone and if you can't afford one, the state will provide you with one at a cost to the other cell phone users. Shall we call this a subsidy,taxation without representation, or tyranny..?

you're entitled to anything the law passed by a democratic process says you are

Concordia 33
04-03-2012, 09:29 AM
We've been doing that for decades... it's called SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program, formerly called food stamps, or welfare, or what have you).

We had enough humanity, even decades ago, to recognize that we weren't going to let people starve in the gutter in America.... and just like the health care mandate, you are already paying for it.

Why not eliminate that too? Sure, there will be people dying of starvation.... but your 'freedoms' wont be 'eroded'.

We have humanity for those with health issues too and have for a long time. It's called medicaid, medicare, Hill Burton Funding. I thought we were talking about an all-encompassing solution to one of society's issues.



Assistance with Paying for Medical Care and ProceduresDepartment of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (http://www.hhs.gov/) [hhs.gov]
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has information on assistance in paying for medical care for low-income families. Go to "Families & Children."
Contact DHHS directly:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Telephone: 202-619-0257
Toll-free: 1-877-696-6775
Government Benefits (http://www.benefits.gov/)
The official government benefits website. This is a free, confidential tool that locates government benefits.
[B]Health Resources and Services Administration (http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/) [mchb.hrsa.gov]
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the DHHS website, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB), whose goal is to ensure equal access to quality health care in a supportive, culturally competent family and community setting.
Contact MCHB Directly:
Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB)
Parklawn Building
Room 18-05
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Phone: 301-443-2170
Fax: 301-443-1797
E-mail: ctibbs@hrsa.gov
Insure Kids Now (http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/) [insurekidsnow.gov]
The Insure Kids Now website is a resource where you can find free or low cost health insurance for children and teens.
Find A Health Center (http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/Search_HCC.aspx) [findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov]
You can find federally funded free or low cost medical and dental care by using the HRSA Find A Health Center tool.
Hill-Burton Facilities (http://www.hrsa.gov/gethealthcare/affordable/hillburton/) [hrsa.gov]
Hill-Burton facilities provide care to uninsured

SaltyBoatr
04-03-2012, 09:31 AM
What is the 'conservative' solution to this problem? Continue to pay for the freeloaders?

(At least some of the 'freeloaders' can be sold to collection agencies to recoup, forcing them into bankruptcy.)

The conservative solution is to support/oppose laws in such a way that the insurance industry can maximize their profits.

To accomplish this they paint a narrative (using the talking heads on the TV which they own) about "risks to freedom" which engages an outrage chip in the brains of GOP sheeple.

There is a Frankenstein's monster awakened by this tactic, called the "Tea Party". Not all the corporatist conservatives are comfortable with the Tea Party because the insurance mandate is actually quite profitable for their insurance industry (with millions of newly insured healthy people). Oh the irony.

Concordia 33
04-03-2012, 09:45 AM
There are no 'all encompassing' solutions.... just things we can do to actually reduce the cost of medical care, including that paid for by taxpayers. The mandate is intended to do precisely that; improve medical care, and extend it to people who DON'T currently qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, by enlarging the actuarial base.

It doesn't solve all the problems.... but it does help. It's an incremental solution, because the Republicans refuse to consider the most obvious and dramatic solution, one which every other country in the developed world has already recognized, and has, for years: nationalized single payer health insurance.

The Republican solution is to enlarge the debt and deficit, while at the same time, raising the costs of medical care through tax credits for insurance which don't cover adequate health care, and do nothing about the people who still refuse to insure themselves.... a recipe for letting the problem get worse and worse as time goes on.

I'm sorry Norman but I just don't agree. Individual freedoms take precedence over more government intrusion. Like any response there are costs and benefits and that is so for the adoption of or the exclusion of National Healthcare. Given the philosophical foundation of our country, I believe (and acknowledge that you will disagree wit this) that our country is founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. I do not believe that the healthcare law can co-exist with this philosophy.

BA.Barcolounger
04-03-2012, 09:56 AM
Norm -
If welfare recipients are lazy bums feeding off the taxpayer tit, then what do you call uninsured people?

Self insured............



Ronald Reagan signed the law that stated that people would be treated in an ER regardless of ability to pay. So the "uninsured" are NOT "self insured". They are covered by the taxpayers.

wardd
04-03-2012, 10:14 AM
I'm sorry Norman but I just don't agree. Individual freedoms take precedence over more government intrusion. Like any response there are costs and benefits and that is so for the adoption of or the exclusion of National Healthcare. Given the philosophical foundation of our country, I believe (and acknowledge that you will disagree wit this) that our country is founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. I do not believe that the healthcare law can co-exist with this philosophy.

what is your answer if the majority want health care, which will come to pass?

and how is someone else getting health care infringing on your freedom to turn down healthcare?

wardd
04-03-2012, 10:17 AM
why do some see gov provided healthcare as an intrusion?
do they see that about gov provided emergency services such as police, fire and ambulance?

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-03-2012, 10:30 AM
I'm sorry Norman but I just don't agree. Individual freedoms take precedence over more government intrusion. Like any response there are costs and benefits and that is so for the adoption of or the exclusion of National Healthcare. Given the philosophical foundation of our country, I believe (and acknowledge that you will disagree wit this) that our country is founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. I do not believe that the healthcare law can co-exist with this philosophy.

You are arguing for a view of our constitution that one justice called "a mutual suicide pact".
Medical costs are eating up more and more of our national wealth. It can't go on . It might bring about a collapse of our economy. A country that has been brought to it's knees economically is as helpless as if it had been defeated in a war.

Concordia 33
04-03-2012, 10:57 AM
You are arguing for a view of our constitution that one justice called "a mutual suicide pact".
Medical costs are eating up more and more of our national wealth. It can't go on . It might bring about a collapse of our economy. A country that has been brought to it's knees economically is as helpless as if it had been defeated in a war.

Ironic don't you think A justice takes an oath to uphold the constitution and yet wants to make judgments based on the impact of their decision.

I assume you are referring to this treatise....



Richard Posner’s Not a Suicide Pact is a distinguished jurist’s attempt to resolve
this problem by way of the time-honored American expedient of a resort to
‘pragmatism.’ ‘The core meaning of “civil liberties,”’ Posner argues, ‘is freedom from
coercive or otherwise intrusive governmental actions designed to secure the nation
against real, or sometimes, imagined internal and external enemies’ (p. 4). ‘The
central question addressed in this book,’ he continues, ‘is how far civil liberties based
on the Constitution should be permitted to vary with the threat level,’ where the
threat arises from ‘terrorism that has the potential to create a national emergency’

Gerarddm
04-03-2012, 11:17 AM
Running every policy today through an unalterable filter first created by the Founders is like conducting your life by unalterable religious standards set by some desert dwellers a couple of thousand years ago. Both are untenable in the modern world.

The Founders were pretty smart men, but they were not rigid in their thinking- migod, how could they be when they were codifying a whole new way of governance? I think they were adaptable, and intended the Constitution to be so as well.

Y Bar Ranch
04-03-2012, 11:42 AM
as wise as we like to think our founding fathers were, there is no way the could have imagined the changes time would bring.

o rly?


the congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_a1sec9.html) and fourth (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_a1sec9.html) clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#deprive) of its equal suffrage in the senate.

Osborne Russell
04-03-2012, 12:58 PM
As wise as we like to think our founding fathers were, there is no way the could have imagined the changes time would bring.

Yeah, I hear this often but wonder what the point is. The suggestion seems to be that there is some defect in the constitution that can't be cured by amendment, which would be an alarming argument, and therefore, I'd like to hear it. But it never comes.

Doesn't seem like even you are making that argument or even proposing an amendment:


Promoting the general welfare is specifically listed as one of the reasons for writing the constitution. I am unable to discern how denying anyone healthcare promotes their welfare.

Peerie Maa
04-03-2012, 01:01 PM
I'm sorry Norman but I just don't agree. Individual freedoms take precedence over more government intrusion. Like any response there are costs and benefits and that is so for the adoption of or the exclusion of National Healthcare. Given the philosophical foundation of our country, I believe (and acknowledge that you will disagree wit this) that our country is founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. I do not believe that the healthcare law can co-exist with this philosophy.
So, how closely does the American Experiment begun by the Founding Fathers fit with this?
Libertarian ideals are no better than Communist, or any of the other Utopian philosophies. Good in theory bad in practice.:confused::d

Osborne Russell
04-03-2012, 01:02 PM
Garrett however goes on to say that:

"...The Founders . . . remained suspicious of a strong, centralized government . . .

Wrong. George Washington demanded a strong centralized government. That's why he's called the father of the nation, not because of the revolution. The revolution didn't create a nation.

IGNORANT REDS

Osborne Russell
04-03-2012, 01:12 PM
This has been pretty well addressed in at least two other threads that I am aware of, and is not keeping with the topic of this thread.

That which you quote is twaddle.



Apparently, the people at Think Progress believe a requirement to buy health insurance is akin to the requirement under the Second Militia Act of 1792 that soldiers equip themselves for duty in case of invasion. The provocative title attached to this insipid argument is "Why George Washington would disagree with the right wing about health care’s constitutionality".

The two requirements are not only akin they are identical, in terms of the issue, i.e. can the feds force anyone to buy anything. If they can do it as part of exercising one of the named powers, they can do it as to all.


This is what your father meant when he said a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What does it say about progressives -- or, at least, the sort of progressive who would nod approvingly at such stuff -- that a law enacted when the United States was young and in constant danger from foreign enemies would be cited as precedent for mandated health insurance? It almost reads like a parody of progressivism, with its slipshod conflation of national defense with the welfare state.

One is a precedent of the other. What it "says about" anyone who says it is that they understand that. There is no difference between national defense and the welfare state or any other exercise of federal power whatsoever, in terms of this issue.

wardd
04-03-2012, 01:20 PM
how long after the ratification of the constitution did they start doing things that today some would consider unconstitutional and against original intent?

Osborne Russell
04-03-2012, 01:23 PM
Should we have an individual mandate for food insurance?

Depends on the circumstances. If it's necessary to preserve the republic and or promote the general welfare, yes, we will do it.

ANOTHER FAILED EVASIVE TACTIC

SaltyBoatr
04-03-2012, 01:27 PM
Wrong. George Washington demanded a strong centralized government. That's why he's called the father of the nation, not because of the revolution. The revolution didn't create a nation.

IGNORANT REDS

True. Bear in mind that the Constitution was created in 1789. Prior to that in the USA, from 1774 to 1788 the government was decentralized. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Continental_Congress#List_of_pres idents) The solid majority of founding fathers recognized that the 14 year experiment in decentralized government was a failure.

The Constitution of 1789 created a strong centralized government, (to fix the problems of de-centralized government) and was ratified by unanimous vote of the states. Of course, some people at the time were still suspicious of centralized government, but they were in a definite minority.

Y Bar Ranch
04-03-2012, 01:38 PM
...and was ratified by unanimous vote of the states.
Wrong

Edit: Oops, I'm wrong. Not signed unanimously (trivial pursuit question).

RonW
04-03-2012, 02:35 PM
Believe it or not this debate (as we will call it ) over if the federal government can mandate the citizens to buy health insurance, is the same debate that was held over 224 years ago. And that debate was how much gov. and how much federal gov. over state gov. and when the gov is infringing upon the rights
of the people.........

Guess what? After they hashed it all out, they even went so far as to write down what they agreed upon.
As for what power the federal gov. shall have is all written down in article 1 section 8 spelling out exactly what the powers of the federal gov. shall be.
As for the states rights, they also wrote that down in the bill of rights amendment #10..........
As for the people rights not to be infringed upon is spelled out in the first 8 amendments and the 9th. was used to reafirm no infringement upon...

Some of you should actually read this stuff instead of making all the emotional partisan political arguments that don't hold water.....

wardd
04-03-2012, 03:00 PM
Believe it or not this debate (as we will call it ) over if the federal government can mandate the citizens to buy health insurance, is the same debate that was held over 224 years ago. And that debate was how much gov. and how much federal gov. over state gov. and when the gov is infringing upon the rights
of the people.........

Guess what? After they hashed it all out, they even went so far as to write down what they agreed upon.
As for what power the federal gov. shall have is all written down in article 1 section 8 spelling out exactly what the powers of the federal gov. shall be.
As for the states rights, they also wrote that down in the bill of rights amendment #10..........
As for the people rights not to be infringed upon is spelled out in the first 8 amendments and the 9th. was used to reafirm no infringement upon...

Some of you should actually read this stuff instead of making all the emotional partisan political arguments that don't hold water.....


and it was rehashed in 1861-65 and still going

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-04-2012, 11:00 PM
Ironic don't you think A justice takes an oath to uphold the constitution and yet wants to make judgments based on the impact of their decision.

I assume you are referring to this treatise....

No. The original quote, I believe, was attributed to some supreme court justice. And the idea behind it was sticking to legal dogmas no matter what the cost can be a fast trip to national ruination.

fishrswim
04-04-2012, 11:09 PM
Compelled to buy insurance. Hmmm, I remember my father somewhere around 1953 going into an insurance office to buy auto insurance for the first time because it was now a state law that required everyone have liability insurance. He wasn't happy about it, but as we know we've all been doing it since then. I just showed my insurance card last week to get an access sticker for a local military base. Don't see much new in requiring health insurance.

Get over it.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-04-2012, 11:35 PM
Believe it or not this debate (as we will call it ) over if the federal government can mandate the citizens to buy health insurance, is the same debate that was held over 224 years ago. And that debate was how much gov. and how much federal gov. over state gov. and when the gov is infringing upon the rights
of the people.........

....

Where do you get this stuff?
The idea for a new goverment was hatched because the old government, the Confederation States, was a failure because it had allowed the states to remain souvereign. The states had run up debts during the revolution and had fobbed them off on the national government. The national government coudn't pay any debts becasue it had no power to tax and no money was forthcoming from the states. George Washington infered the confederation was not a respectable government because it had bad debts. Also there was no way to guarantee states would not walk away from the confederation if they found a deal more to their liking.
So a conference to amend the Articles of Confederation was called then highjacked, by some very smart people, with the idea of an all-new governmental configuration.
The big bone of contention was good ol' "states rights". The states were not going to give up what they had engineered in the confederation without a fight.
Then they conducted the state conventions of 1787-1788 where everyone involved tried to protect their own political interests at the expense of everybody else. A lot of intense politicing produced the first draft which had no amendments. Some states resisted voting on it because they wanted amendments. More politicing. The smart money said all was lost if some amendments were not entertained. The number offered were beyond practical limits so more politicing and a short list of amendments were produced. Evetually they got the Ok from, I believe, 11 states so the constitution was offered and a call for ratification was made. More politicing which ate up 4 years and the document went into effect in 1792. It was shot thu' with the results of deal making , horse trading and arm twisting. It is what it is. The best deal that could be gotten at the time.


Quizz on Friday
Bring a number 2 pencil
Make sure it's sharpened this time.

Waddie
04-04-2012, 11:50 PM
The federal government knows no limits to power. I don't say that in jest.

They have the right to force you to buy anything, or register everything - so long as they can get the votes in Congress and a President who will sign it. If the SC objects they can simply restate the bill a different way and go around them, or do it by executive order.

You do not own your property, except for tax purposes. You possess it at the whim of government, who can take it for any purpose they see fit.

Your money is not your money. The government decides how much of it you can keep, once again by Congressional action or executive order. The IRS can confiscate or place a lien on your assets without a court order.

Your must obtain government permission to marry and government approval to divorce.

The government has the power to force you into the military, and/or to financially support wars you may not approve of.

In short, all this talk of rights is a mirage. The basis of every government is force, and power enables more power.

I'm not making a judgement, or even saying it's wrong.....just that it's how it is. Liberals have rights they would like to regulate more (possibly out of existence) and Conservatives have rights they would like to see weakened (or possibly eliminated). Both groups would love to have lots more power in order to promote their respective versions of Utopia.

regards,
Waddie

TANSTAF1
04-05-2012, 07:56 AM
The argument for the constitutionality of Obamacare because of parallels to the Militia Act of 1792 misses the point.


The Militia Act of 1792 did force individuals to have arms. This was not because of Second Amendment’s stipulation that the militia be “well regulated” ad that a command to have arms, etc. wasand can be a proper regulation.


It actually was passed pursuant to Congress’s Article I power to call forth, arm, and organize the militia. The Constitution explicitly allows the government to issue affirmative commands to individuals in highly limited circumstances but this does not mean it has a general power to issue such commands in all circumstances.

TANSTAF1
04-05-2012, 08:02 AM
Ok, let's see:



Just what is the 'general welfare' of the United States, and what does this constitutional provision include? What does it exclude? Is it obvious, or does it require interpretation?

It doesn't look as if the Constitution 'spells it out exactly', by a long shot.....

Anything and everything can be considered as being for the general welfare.

So what you are saying is that there are NO limits on government power? Is that your opinion. Or is "general welfare" just "health care?" Why isn't it also homes, heat, cooling, clothing, and food? And don't forget wide screen TVs and cable so everyone can see their favorite pol. And cell phones, so they can keep in touch.

wardd
04-05-2012, 08:24 AM
The federal government knows no limits to power. I don't say that in jest.

They have the right to force you to buy anything, or register everything - so long as they can get the votes in Congress and a President who will sign it. If the SC objects they can simply restate the bill a different way and go around them, or do it by executive order.

You do not own your property, except for tax purposes. You possess it at the whim of government, who can take it for any purpose they see fit.

Your money is not your money. The government decides how much of it you can keep, once again by Congressional action or executive order. The IRS can confiscate or place a lien on your assets without a court order.

Your must obtain government permission to marry and government approval to divorce.

The government has the power to force you into the military, and/or to financially support wars you may not approve of.

In short, all this talk of rights is a mirage. The basis of every government is force, and power enables more power.

I'm not making a judgement, or even saying it's wrong.....just that it's how it is. Liberals have rights they would like to regulate more (possibly out of existence) and Conservatives have rights they would like to see weakened (or possibly eliminated). Both groups would love to have lots more power in order to promote their respective versions of Utopia.

regards,
Waddie

not the best definition of the social contract i've heard

wardd
04-05-2012, 08:28 AM
this is not the same country it was over 200 years ago

wardd
04-05-2012, 08:40 AM
the courts are not there to find the truth as the truth can't always be found or agreed on but to render decisions that can be accepted so we can get on with our lives without killing each other

Y Bar Ranch
04-05-2012, 08:42 AM
As I've said before, the Constitution is not, and should not be, an ideological straightjacket or communal suicide pact, which raises ideology over reality.

It isn't. They planned for the future.


T
he Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section ofthe first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Ted Hoppe
04-05-2012, 08:42 AM
I thought this was rather interesting: The ideas of caring for the population is part of the soul of the founding fathers - it is part of our genetically infused Common Sense.

Agrarian Justice is the title of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine, published in 1797, which advocated the use of an estate tax to fund a universal old-age and disability pension, as well as a fixed sum to be paid to all citizens on reaching maturity. It was written in the winter of 1795-96, but remained unpublished for a year ,Paine having read a sermon by Richard Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, which discussed the "Wisdom ... of God, in having made both Rich and Poor", he felt the need to publish, under the argument that "rich" and "poor" were arbitrary divisions, not divinely created ones

The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, "the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, since it was impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.

Not to pay for universal health is therefore an abomination. We as a society exist because we take care of each other in the attempt to make a better place for God's intended plan for man and nature.

Concordia 33
04-05-2012, 08:48 AM
Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.

I am interested in this, can you tell me a little more about where Paine says this? Much of his writing originated from the writings of Locke and de Montesquieu, but there is no context for me here.

Concordia 33
04-05-2012, 08:53 AM
Sorry, but we have a Supreme Court for a reason; to decide how the constitution, and those amendments, are to be applied. You may agree or disagree with the decisions of that court, but to think that the Constitution itself is so crystal clear as to preclude the necessity of deciding what it means is absurd...



Actually the Supreme Court is not here to determine how the Constitution and its amendments are applied that is the job of the legislative branch. The Supreme court can only evaluate the executive and legislative branch's application of the law in relation to the Constitution.

Concordia 33
04-05-2012, 09:01 AM
Different words, same net effect.

Only if you want to blur the boundaries between one branch of government and thew other.

wardd
04-05-2012, 09:20 AM
can the supreme court rule on something if no one brings it before the court?

Concordia 33
04-05-2012, 09:22 AM
You're just obscuring the facts with a 'precedence' argument. Yes, the Supreme Court doesn't weigh in, in advance... it waits until the exective or legislative branches DO somethnig, like pass a law or rule.... and THEN it may decide on the constitutionality of a law or executive order.....

..but, as I said before, the net effect is exactly the same.


The net effect has nothing to do with it. If SCOTUS creates a law, executes it, and then upholds the law in a court challenge, the net effect would be the same as if the legislature enacted a bill, the President Executed it and the Court upheld it, but I think that completely distorts the concept of the three branches of government. I think that this is a big distinction.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-05-2012, 09:56 AM
It isn't. They planned for the future.

They didn't plan too well.
Once a constutional convention is called there is no bar to what they can consider. The original cause can be cast aside and other amendments can be put on the agenda. Once an amendment is offered the period of ratification can go on forever unless some time restraint is included in the enabling legislation.
The power to amend is, pretty much, unchecked once the process is inaugurated.

Y Bar Ranch
04-05-2012, 10:02 AM
Then the Supreme Court is unnecessary, according to you... have I got that right?

http://i40.tinypic.com/1zx6tu0.gif

Sorry. I just love this gif.

Y Bar Ranch
04-05-2012, 10:11 AM
Actually the Supreme Court is not here to determine how the Constitution and its amendments are applied that is the job of the legislative branch. The Supreme court can only evaluate the executive and legislative branch's application of the law in relation to the Constitution.
Indeed.


The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. This means that the courts do not issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of laws or the legality of actions if the ruling would have no practical effect.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/judicial-branch

Gerarddm
04-05-2012, 10:18 AM
The Constitution is not black and white like mathematics. It requires interpretation. "Strict constructionists" are delusional.

I don't who these 'rational' people are who oppose ACA because there is supposedly a long list of reasons to be against it. I suppose they must be entrenched interests.

SINGLE PAYER. MEDICARE FOR ALL.

Concordia 33
04-05-2012, 10:20 AM
SCOTUS 'creates laws'?

That's a new one, to me.

That's my point exactly. You say all that matters is the net effect yet I gave two examples, but the first example is absurd whereas the second example is the process as dictated by the Constitution. Both meet your measure of the "same net effect". That is why the net effect is a pointless way to evaluate the argument.

Concordia 33
04-05-2012, 10:23 AM
The Constitution is not black and white like mathematics. It requires interpretation. "Strict constructionists" are delusional.

I don't who these 'rational' people are who oppose ACA because there is supposedly a long list of reasons to be against it. I suppose they must be entrenched interests.

SINGLE PAYER. MEDICARE FOR ALL.

If we aren't going to adhere to the Constitution, what is the argument for even having it? Seriously, what good is it at that point? I guess I am also a little curious about the difference between adherence to the Constitution vs "strict adherence"?

Y Bar Ranch
04-05-2012, 10:30 AM
If we aren't going to adhere to the Constitution, what is the argument for even having it? Seriously, what good is it at that point?
Top cover

Concordia 33
04-05-2012, 10:57 AM
Why is it that so many people presume that the Constitution is so incredibly clear and well-defined, that they can also presume that THEIR interpretation of the Constitution is the 'correct' one?

I see this constantly.... and I just can't figure it out. If nine men and women on the Supreme Court, all notable jurists, highly intelligent, with years of experience in adjudicating questions of constitutionality, can rarely EVER agree on a constitutional issue.....

...then why are the faux Supreme Court justices here in the Bilge so damn sure of what is, or is not, Constitutional?

I think you missinterpret my comment. I was responding to the comment about "strict Constitutionalists" being "delusional". My assumption is that the Constitution is not clear and that is why the Supreme Court is needed to help in this measure, but the term strict Constitutionalist implies that one can also be a loose Constitutionalist. And in that part I disagree - whatever the interpretation is about the Constitution, we cannot be loose about it. You cannot conclude that the strict interpretation requires action "A" but instead follow action "B" which is more loosely adherent to the intent of the Constitution. It renders the Constutution moot.

SaltyBoatr
04-05-2012, 11:11 AM
...the prevalence of 5-4 decisions completely denies this.

And those 5-4 always fall on the same ideological lines? That pattern tell us that the real reason is ideology. And, the excuse of strict constitutionalism is a smoke screen.

Ted Hoppe
04-05-2012, 11:30 AM
I am interested in this, can you tell me a little more about where Paine says this? Much of his writing originated from the writings of Locke and de Montesquieu, but there is no context for me here.

Paines 1790-2 writings of the Rights of Man are fundamental to the American Experience which was inspired by Burke. the tyranny of wealth was of great concern. It amazes me to read postings about who the founding fathers are - obviously there are many who discount the men who live and died working out the goals of the American Republic. those men who fought near Boston, Valley Forge, at Georgetown weren't exactly Hamiltonians. They sought a system of equality, prosperity and life in pursuit of balance of god and nature through a civil just society.

Concordia 33
04-05-2012, 11:41 AM
Paines 1790-2 writings of the Rights of Man are fundamental to the American Experience which was inspired by Burke. the tyranny of wealth was of great concern. It amazes me to read postings about who the founding fathers are - obviously there are many who discount the men who live and died working out the goals of the American Republic. those men who fought near Boston, Valley Forge, at Georgetown weren't exactly Hamiltonians. They sought a system of equality, prosperity and life in pursuit of balance of god and nature through a civil just society.

Yes I do know quite a bit but not everything from the founding fathers, but what I was asking you (perhaps crudely) is if you have the specific passage you referenced rather that its paraphrase - I am not familiar with it.

Ted Hoppe
04-05-2012, 12:07 PM
Yes I do know quite a bit but not everything from the founding fathers, but what I was asking you (perhaps crudely) is if you have the specific passage you referenced rather that its paraphrase - I am not familiar with it.
Excerpted from Agrerian Justice - http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm
"The rugged face of society, checkered with the extremes of affluence and want, proves that some extraordinary violence has been committed upon it, and calls on justice for redress. The great mass of the poor in countries are become an hereditary race, and it is next to impossible them to get out of that state of themselves. It ought also to be observed that this mass increases in all countries that are called civilized. re persons fall annually into it than get out of it.
Though in a plan of which justice and humanity are the foundation principles, interest ought not to be admitted into the calculation, yet it is always of advantage to the establishment of any plan to show that it beneficial as a matter of interest. The success of any proposed plan submitted to public consideration must finally depend on the numbers interested in supporting it, united with the justice of its principles.


The plan here proposed will benefit all, without injuring any. It will consolidate the interest of the republic with that of the individual. To the numerous class dispossessed of their natural inheritance by the system of landed property it will be an act of national justice. To persons dying possessed of moderate fortunes it will operate as a tontine to their children, more beneficial than the sum of money paid into the fund: and it will give to the accumulation of riches a degree of security that none of old governments of Europe, now tottering on their foundations, can give.


I do not suppose that more than one family in ten, in any of the countries of Europe, has, when the head of the family dies, a clear property of five hundred pounds sterling. To all such the plan is advantageous. That property would pay fifty pounds into the fund, and if there were only two children under age they would receive fifteen pounds each (thirty pounds), on coming of age, and be entitled to ten pounds a year after fifty.


It is from the overgrown acquisition of property that the fund will support itself; and I know that the possessors of such property in England, though they would eventually be benefitted by the protection of nine-tenths of it, will exclaim against the plan. But without entering any inquiry how they came by that property, let them recollect that they have been the advocates of this war, and that Mr. Pitt has already laid on more new taxes to be raised annually upon the people of England, and that for supporting the despotism of Austria and the Bourbons against the liberties of France, than would pay annually all the sums proposed in this plan.


I have made the calculations stated in this plan, upon what is called personal, as well as upon landed property. The reason for making it upon land is already explained; and the reason for taking personal property into the calculation is equally well founded though on a different principle. Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.


Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.


This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence.


It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labor to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund; for it is no reason that, because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it.
The state of civilization that has prevailed throughout Europe, is as unjust in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and it is the consciousness of this, and the apprehension that such a state cannot continue when once investigation begins in any country, that makes the possessors of property dread every idea of a revolution. It is the hazard and not the principle of revolutions that retards their progress. This being the case, it is necessary as well for the protection of property as for the sake of justice and humanity, to form a system that, while it preserves one part of society from wretchedness, shall secure the other from depreciation.


The superstitious awe, the enslaving reverence, that formerly Surrounded affluence, is passing away in all countries, and leaving the possessor of property to the convulsion of accidents. When wealth and splendor, instead of fascinating the multitude, excite emotions of disgust; n, instead of drawing forth admiration, it is beheld as an insult on wretchedness; when the ostentatious appearance it makes serves call the right of it in question, the case of property becomes critical, and it is only in a system of justice that the possessor can contemplate security.


To remove the danger, it is necessary to remove the antipathies, and this can only be done by making property productive of a national bless, extending to every individual. When the riches of one man above other shall increase the national fund in the same proportion; when it shall be seen that the prosperity of that fund depends on the prosperity of individuals; when the more riches a man acquires, the better it shall for the general mass; it is then that antipathies will cease, and property be placed on the permanent basis of national interest and protection.


I have no property in France to become subject to the plan I prose. What I have, which is not much, is in the United States of America. But I will pay one hundred pounds sterling toward this fund in France, the instant it shall be established; and I will pay the same sum England, whenever a similar establishment shall take place in that country.


A revolution in the state of civilization is the necessary companion of revolutions in the system of government. If a revolution in any country be from bad to good, or from good to bad, the state of what is called civilization in that country, must be made conformable thereto, to giveth at revolution effect.


Despotic government supports itself by abject civilization, in which debasement of the human mind, and wretchedness in the mass of the people, are the chief criterions. Such governments consider man merely as an animal; that the exercise of intellectual faculty is not his privilege; that he has nothing to do with the laws but to obey them; and they politically depend more upon breaking the spirit of the people by poverty, than they fear enraging it by desperation."

Ted Hoppe
04-05-2012, 12:29 PM
I want to point out one more point to this argument about founding fathers and intent...

How many of you remember the Articles of Confederation?

Congress had debated the Articles for over a year and a half, and the ratification process had taken nearly three and a half years. Many participants in the original debates were no longer delegates, and some of the signers had only recently arrived. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were signed by a group of men who were never present in the Congress at the same time.

Patrick Henry warned us of the Federalists and the mischief they were perpetrating on the ideals of which this American Revolution was founded. it was the money (banks, financiers and thier lawyers that wrote the Constitution) interests that secured its freedoms and promisary notes through this political system. it is not by total coincidence that Jefferson not at the Consitutional Convention and remained in France at the time of its drafting.

SaltyBoatr
04-05-2012, 12:51 PM
I want to point out one more point to this argument about founding fathers and intent...

How many of you remember the Articles of Confederation?

Congress had debated the Articles for over a year and a half, and the ratification process had taken nearly three and a half years. Many participants in the original debates were no longer delegates, and some of the signers had only recently arrived. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were signed by a group of men who were never present in the Congress at the same time.

Patrick Henry warned us of the Federalists and the mischief they were perpetrating on the ideals of which this American Revolution was founded. it was the money (banks, financiers and thier lawyers that wrote the Constitution) interests that secured its freedoms and promisary notes through this political system. it is not by total coincidence that Jefferson not at the Consitutional Convention and remained in France at the time of its drafting.

The Articles of Confederation were widely seen as a failure, and were repealed and replaced by the Constitution in 1789.. Patrick Henry, an anti-Federalist, was out of step with the majority of the other Founding Fathers who supported a strong central government.

Interesting, anti-Federalist sentiments continue forward to the present time. The Tea Party are anti-Federalists too.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-05-2012, 01:14 PM
. There's a LONG list of reasons rational people are opposed to it.

Yeah, like it SUCKS?
It SUCKS more in the AM than the PM?
Even if it didn't SUCK it still SUCKS?
If the Supreme Court says it doesn't SUCK then they will SUCK, too?
My buddies on the corner say it SUCKS and they know everything?
ad nauseum.....

Ted Hoppe
04-05-2012, 02:08 PM
The Articles of Confederation were widely seen as a failure, and were repealed and replaced by the Constitution in 1789.. Patrick Henry, an anti-Federalist, was out of step with the majority of the other Founding Fathers who supported a strong central government.

Interesting, anti-Federalist sentiments continue forward to the present time. The Tea Party are anti-Federalists too.

You can not dismiss the Articles so quickly. You seem to take the Hamiltonian side in the argument quite readily. Moreover the revolution is not over after the fighting and Because lawyers draw up a questionable document. Dont forget that each State is an independent entity. Shays and the Whiskey Rebellion are really reactionary to these Federalists. just because money interests won doesn't make the situation correct. Moreover radical elements from the revolution continues and the reactions to Federalist (and the Banks) are strongly contested... As a result we get the Jacksonian era were percieved common men take the white house. this union of States are for the common good. Free land, a chicken in every pot, a civilized society balanced by god and nature where human affairs are based on liberty, equality and fraternity - ideas taken from America to France. clearly this argument is not over until put to rest in 1865.

At the Constitutional Convention Alexander Hamilton said, “inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself.” He believed men and women who fought to create America did not desire equality, they wanted freedom. A desire for equality cannot be found in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Proponents of equality are forced to use the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence to justify their views. However this phrase was based on the writings of George Mason who proposed that “all men are born equally free and independent.” The idea that men are equal in the sight of God and under the law is related to the idea that all men “are born equally free.” The Elite founders of America believed in equal protection under the law but not in equality.

Keith Wilson
04-06-2012, 08:15 AM
God help us, this reminds me of Christian Fundamentalists or Wahabi Muslims arguing about interpretation of scripture, or Mandarins quoting the Analects of Confucius. Those who founded the US were men, not demigods; intelligent but all-too-fallible upper-class white men. The founding documents were as much a result of political haggling, self-interest and expedient compromise as any law passed today. At that time, knowledge of the physical world was very limited, communication was slow, the economy was primitive, most people were farmers, and medicine was essentially useless. Why the bloody hell are we talking about what Hamilton or Jefferson would have thought about how to provide medical care to a population of 300 million?

Y Bar Ranch
04-06-2012, 08:44 AM
God help us, this reminds me of Christian Fundamentalists or Wahabi Muslims arguing about interpretation of scripture, or Mandarins quoting the Analects of Confucius.
I didn't know the bible had an amendment process written directly into it. Or the Koran, for that matter. Not to mention the Analects of Confucius.

Peerie Maa
04-06-2012, 08:54 AM
I didn't know the bible had an amendment process written directly into it. Or the Koran, for that matter. Not to mention the Analects of Confucius.

All three books of the Bible are being argued about and reinterpreted by the scholars of each religion. Some aspects of those religions are capable of recognising the need for change, and do work to accommodate them.
There are some posting here who are Fundamental Constitutionalists, in the same vein as the fundamental Muslims that they would probably condemn.

Y Bar Ranch
04-06-2012, 09:01 AM
All three books of the Bible are being argued about and reinterpreted by the scholars of each religion.
Well of course, since they are in fact otherwise 'dead' documents, i.e., unamendable, pure captures of the Word of God.


There are some posting here who are Fundamental Constitutionalists, in the same vein as the fundamental Muslims that they would probably condemn.
Eh?

Fundamental to the Constitution is its amendment process, from which probably the most important aspect of the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) emerged. Better to have the contents of the Bill of Rights directly codified than to have it emerge through years and years of evolving interpretation, no?

Peerie Maa
04-06-2012, 09:10 AM
Eh?Can you not see that some here venerate the Constitution, and demand that its 200 y o provisions be religiously adhered to no matter what?


Better to have the contents of the Bill of Rights directly codified than to have it emerge through years and years of evolving interpretation, no?No, better to have a system capable of rapid change to keep pace with society's changing needs.

Y Bar Ranch
04-06-2012, 09:29 AM
Can you not see that some here venerate the Constitution, and demand that its 200 y o provisions be religiously adhered to no matter what?

No, better to have a system capable of rapid change to keep pace with society's changing needs.
Eh? You kidding?

Instilling the Bill of Rights in one fell swoop was far quicker and less painful than a slow process of repeatedly executing Act X, getting arrested or charged or otherwise inconvenienced, lose the case, appeal, have it work its way through lower court through appeals through higher courts and finally to the Supreme Court to get some narrow ruling, and repeat in order to get the whole system to move.

Similarly, better to abolish slavery through an amendment than to have repeated rulings through the courts establish it.

In the same way that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, extraordinary interpretations should require plain, simple amendments. Being able to force people to buy things as regulating commerce is extraordinary. Make it clear that is what we mean, if that is in fact what we mean.

SaltyBoatr
04-06-2012, 09:41 AM
You can not dismiss the Articles so quickly. You seem to take the Hamiltonian side in the argument quite readily. Moreover the revolution is not over after the fighting and Because lawyers draw up a questionable document. Dont forget that each State is an independent entity. Shays and the Whiskey Rebellion are really reactionary to these Federalists. ...

I am not dismissing, rather I am just observing.

I am just observing the all the states, unanimously, rejected the Articles of Confederation and ratified the Constitution of 1789.

And yes, the Shays' Insurrection of 1787 was a huge issue, that is why the Founders unanimously created a new centralized form of government in 1789 powerful enough to crush insurrections, as they did with to the Whiskey Insurrection of 1791.

It would be comical, if it wasn't so sad, that the Tea Party is still contesting the unanimous decision from 1789.

And stating the obvious here, while they don't like to admit it, many of them with their 2A secret agenda are preparing for another insurrection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries).

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 09:42 AM
No, better to have a system capable of rapid change to keep pace with society's changing needs.

Though this (like Libertarianism) is true in theory, it leaves you vulnerable to tyrannical leaders. The Constitution was all about limiting the actions of government, and I think the minimum necessary is always the best approach. The trick is for everyone to agree on what is the appropriate "minimum necessary". Socialism (having never lived under it) seems to me a maximum necessary centralized government approach, so I guess you could view the Constitution as anti-socialist.

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 09:46 AM
It would be comical, if it wasn't so sad, that the Tea Party is still contesting the unanimous decision from 1789.

And stating the obvious here, while they don't like to admit it, many of them with their 2A secret agenda are preparing for another insurrection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries).

Where does that come from? My understanding of the Tea Party (and I have heard some of their leaders talk on the radio) seems more about limited government and fiscal responsibility - it seems like you have an entirely different understanding. Can you cite any statements from Tea Party leaders that supports your premise?

SaltyBoatr
04-06-2012, 10:22 AM
the Tea Party...seems more about limited government and fiscal responsibility

Limited government and "fiscal restraint" are the exact same values held by the anti-Federalists (the losing side) of the Constitutional debates of 1789.

Osborne Russell
04-06-2012, 10:31 AM
An excellent discussion all around. Thanks to Ted for the Thomas Paine.

It's true, this health care business does lead us back to what is the proper role of government, which for America includes 200 years of experience with the constitution.

The constitution is in turn based on certain conceptions of natural rights, which by definition are independent of time, place and circumstances. So it's good to come to understanding of what they are.

Also important to remember that by definition, no constitution can be the perfect protector of those rights; but at the same time, things should not be changed for light and transient causes as TJ put it.

The constitution with its so-called balance of powers between states and the feds wasn't put forward as the ideal solution but as a compromise. It has a built-in conflict. So to speak of it as some kind of optimized instrument for carrying out the founder's intent as if that intent was a consensus is just wrong. It's an instrument designed to contain a compromise. There are good arguments on both sides, all of the original ones plus some new.

The problem is as some point out, where, on principle, can you draw a limit on the power of the federal government? It's a vital question. Many liberals are unconscious Hamiltonians, i.e. they would be happy to see the states lose the last of their sovereignty. That is a judgment that all the anti-federalist arguments are wrong; I'm a long way from being convinced of that. In any event it would be unwise to do it suddenly.

Many conservatives trivialize the whole deal by setting up their mythological action figures and their holy writ, when it suits them, so they can get into government and get the money, e.g. the "Bridge To Nowhere", contracts to supply bottled water to the troops in Iraq, etc. Their ancestor isn't Patrick Henry, it's the contractors who sold salt horse and blankets to the Army to fulfill treaties with the Native Americans. Conservative leaders spout the line, the mass buys it, the leaders get the money, and the mass gets an identity, however fake. And the all-important jobs, jobs, jobs -- working for the contractors.

Peerie Maa
04-06-2012, 10:38 AM
Eh? You kidding?

Instilling the Bill of Rights in one fell swoop was far quicker and less painful than a slow process of repeatedly executing Act X, getting arrested or charged or otherwise inconvenienced, lose the case, appeal, have it work its way through lower court through appeals through higher courts and finally to the Supreme Court to get some narrow ruling, and repeat in order to get the whole system to move.

Similarly, better to abolish slavery through an amendment than to have repeated rulings through the courts establish it.

In the same way that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, extraordinary interpretations should require plain, simple amendments. Being able to force people to buy things as regulating commerce is extraordinary. Make it clear that is what we mean, if that is in fact what we mean.
You seem to have missed my point entirely. Our laws are not made in the courts, we have a representative democratic government to do that. It does require a new law to be interpreted in the court, which may indicate that it was badly drafted. Should that be the case it may be amended. However the process is a lot less tortuous that that you describe. Our "Bill of Rights" is formed by the body of laws preserved in the Rolls, and added to or repealed at need.
Being forced to buy insurance may be strange to you, setting aside car insurance, which I suppose you have no problem with.
However the USA is so locked in to its worship of Mammon, that you have not been able to "nationalise" the funding of health insurance by making it universal through an arm of State or Federal government, which would reduce the cost to all, so that it would be affordable by removing the immorality of making profit out of peoples misfortunes. "Forcing" everybody to buy insurance will go part of the way to reduce the cost, as it spreads the risk further, but it still does not address the profit issue.

Peerie Maa
04-06-2012, 10:42 AM
Though this (like Libertarianism) is true in theory, it leaves you vulnerable to tyrannical leaders. The Constitution was all about limiting the actions of government, and I think the minimum necessary is always the best approach. The trick is for everyone to agree on what is the appropriate "minimum necessary". Socialism (having never lived under it) seems to me a maximum necessary centralized government approach, so I guess you could view the Constitution as anti-socialist.

I think Cromwell beheaded our last tyrannicle leader. Our constitutional democracy has managed quite well ever since.
Your constitution has socialist clauses written in to it, but you have allowed money to prevent them being implemented fully.

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 10:44 AM
Limited government and "fiscal restraint" are the exact same values held by the anti-Federalists (the losing side) of the Constitutional debates of 1789.

Yet the constitution set limits on the government's ability to tax its citizens......



Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3:
“…direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states…according to their respective Numbers…”

Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein directed to be taken.”

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 10:47 AM
I think Cromwell beheaded our last tyrannicle leader. Our constitutional democracy has managed quite well ever since.
Your constitution has socialist clauses written in to it, but you have allowed money to prevent them being implemented fully.

So what would you consider socialist, and what proportion is that to those that recognize the sovereignty of the individual?

wardd
04-06-2012, 10:49 AM
wasn't there health care set up for early sailors?

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 10:52 AM
An excellent discussion all around. Thanks to Ted for the Thomas Paine.

It's true, this health care business does lead us back to what is the proper role of government, which for America includes 200 years of experience with the constitution.

The constitution is in turn based on certain conceptions of natural rights, which by definition are independent of time, place and circumstances. So it's good to come to understanding of what they are.

Also important to remember that by definition, no constitution can be the perfect protector of those rights; but at the same time, things should not be changed for light and transient causes as TJ put it.

The constitution with its so-called balance of powers between states and the feds wasn't put forward as the ideal solution but as a compromise. It has a built-in conflict. So to speak of it as some kind of optimized instrument for carrying out the founder's intent as if that intent was a consensus is just wrong. It's an instrument designed to contain a compromise. There are good arguments on both sides, all of the original ones plus some new.

The problem is as some point out, where, on principle, can you draw a limit on the power of the federal government? It's a vital question. Many liberals are unconscious Hamiltonians, i.e. they would be happy to see the states lose the last of their sovereignty. That is a judgment that all the anti-federalist arguments are wrong; I'm a long way from being convinced of that. In any event it would be unwise to do it suddenly.

Many conservatives trivialize the whole deal by setting up their mythological action figures and their holy writ, when it suits them, so they can get into government and get the money, e.g. the "Bridge To Nowhere", contracts to supply bottled water to the troops in Iraq, etc. Their ancestor isn't Patrick Henry, it's the contractors who sold salt horse and blankets to the Army to fulfill treaties with the Native Americans. Conservative leaders spout the line, the mass buys it, the leaders get the money, and the mass gets an identity, however fake. And the all-important jobs, jobs, jobs -- working for the contractors.

I agree with most of what you say here. Looking back on the Constitution, it was an attempt on the part of individual States to come together for the common good while maintaining as much independence as possible (state's rights). For that reason they wanted to limit the centralized government to only the necessary things so that each state could individually decide how it would handle everything else. They never intended to abdicate all authority - just the necessary ones such as (but not limited to)a common defense.

wardd
04-06-2012, 10:56 AM
Thomas Jefferson Also Supported Government Run Health Care




In response to my earlier piece on “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen” (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/)
, the 1798 law revealing that a number of our founders were more supportive of the notion of mandated health coverage and a government run hospital system than some may have imagined, many have noted that it is not surprising that such legislation would have been signed into law by President John Adams, a noted Federalist who serves as a model for much of what today’s Tea Party finds objectionable.Their point is not wholly unreasonable. After all, it was John Adams who brought us the highly objectionable Alien & Sedition Acts.However, Washington Post blogger, Greg Sargent, today reports (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/newsflash_thomas_jefferson_sup.html?wprss=plum-line) that it wasn’t only John Adams who supported the notion of government run health care. According to Georgetown University history professor and noted historian of America’s early days, Adam Rothman, Thomas Jefferson –the iconic hero of the Tea Party – also supported the legislation.Sargent reprints the following email he received from Prof. Rothan on the subject –
Alexander Hamilton supported the establishment of Marine Hospitals in a 1792 Report, and it was a Federalist congress that passed the law in 1798. But Jefferson (Hamilton’s strict constructionist nemesis) also supported federal marine hospitals, and along with his own Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin, took steps to improve them during his presidency. So I guess you could say it had bipartisan support.
Via The Plum Line (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/newsflash_thomas_jefferson_sup.html?wprss=plum-line)

Ezra Klein adds to the debate (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/the_founders_health-care_manda.html?wprss=ezra-klein) pointing out that “…it was a payroll tax that all sailors on private merchant ships had to pay, and in return, they were basically given access to a small public health-care system. But it was, in essence, a regulation against a form of inactivity: You were not allowed to not do something, in this case, pay for sailor’s health insurance.”There are those who will continue to argue that these indications of how the founders viewed these issues in their own time do not necessarily resolve the issue as to how we may, Constitutionally speaking, proceed with reforming the health care system of today.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/21/thomas-jefferson-also-supported-government-run-health-care/

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 11:14 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/21/thomas-jefferson-also-supported-government-run-health-care/

Yes, sailors as a condition of their employment had a 1% payroll tax to cover their healthcare. At the time there was in the Nation's interests to have able bodied seamen which meant that they needed to keep them healthy in a dangerous job as well as to induce others to enter into the merchant marine trade. That's a far cry from a system that requires all Americans (even those not employed) to enter into a private contract with an insurance company of face a fine. Jefferson also said...



Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

SaltyBoatr
04-06-2012, 11:18 AM
Yet the constitution set limits on the government's ability to tax its citizens......

So? You could also say the Constitution creates broad authority of our government to tax citizens.

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 11:20 AM
So? You could also say the Constitution creates broad authority of our government to tax citizens.

Actually it doesn't give them broad authority. For example it doesn't allow for capitation tax and only allows a direct tax unless it is apportioned equally to the states and excise only if uniformly distributed throughout the entire United States

SaltyBoatr
04-06-2012, 11:31 AM
Actually it doesn't give them broad authority. For example it doesn't allow for capitation tax and only allows a direct tax unless it is apportioned equally to the states and excise only if uniformly distributed throughout the entire United States

So far at least the SCOTUS has strongly disagreed with your RonPaul logic. Maybe soon, the 5-4 Clarence Thomas judicial activism will repeal the IRS, then we can really have a bankrupt government, just like in an Ann Rand dreamworld.

Y Bar Ranch
04-06-2012, 11:44 AM
setting aside car insurance, which I suppose you have no problem with.

(* sigh *)

So all those million people living in Manhattan without a car are forced to buy car insurance? My 18 year old without a license is forced to buy car insurance?

There's a reason why the Solicitor General didn't use that argument before the Supreme Court the other day. It is a bad one.

SaltyBoatr
04-06-2012, 11:49 AM
(* sigh *)

So all those million people living in Manhattan without a car are forced to buy car insurance? My 18 year old without a license is forced to buy car insurance?

There's a reason why the Solicitor General didn't use that argument before the Supreme Court the other day. It is a bad one.

And the reason is the people without cars don't have a need for car repairs. All living people have a need for healthcare, obviously that is the difference.

What I find hard to explain is why the Solicitor General didn't point to the Militia Act of 1792, which required citizens to purchase things from the private marketplace. Clearly the Founding Fathers in 1792 thought it Constitutional to mandate purchases, hence it is not unprecedented.

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 11:52 AM
So far at least the SCOTUS has strongly disagreed with your RonPaul logic. Maybe soon, the 5-4 Clarence Thomas judicial activism will repeal the IRS, then we can really have a bankrupt government, just like in an Ann Rand dreamworld.

First of all that is not Ron Paul Logic and secondly I do not like Ron Paul.


I cited specific points in the Constitution that support my premise and your best response to that is to be sarcastic without any factual statements to counter what I said. Maybe you will want to read the Constitution Article 1 Sections 2,8, 9 then lets talk - but only if you can tone down your hostility a little.

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 11:56 AM
And the reason is the people without cars don't have a need for car repairs. All living people have a need for healthcare, obviously that is the difference.

What I find hard to explain is why the Solicitor General didn't point to the Militia Act of 1792, which required citizens to purchase things from the private marketplace. Clearly the Founding Fathers in 1792 thought it Constitutional to mandate purchases, hence it is not unprecedented.

Again, a lame argument that has been pretty well discredited. The Solicitor General knew that it would be a ridiculous tactic that's why he didn't pursue it. Though the Commerce Clause really doesn't apply either, it was his best shot and he knew it. Just because he botched his defense of the AHCA in the Supreme Court doesn't mean that he is stupid enough to invoke the Militia Act.

SaltyBoatr
04-06-2012, 12:13 PM
First of all that is not Ron Paul Logic and secondly I do not like Ron Paul.


I cited specific points in the Constitution that support my premise and your best response to that is to be sarcastic without any factual statements to counter what I said. Maybe you will want to read the Constitution Article 1 Sections 2,8, 9 then lets talk - but only if you can tone down your hostility a little.

Sorry for being hostile. Still, my point that the SCOTUS has supported the IRS collecting federal taxes like it does, and that fact strongly trumps any layperson reading of the Constitution by your or me.

SaltyBoatr
04-06-2012, 12:17 PM
Again, a lame argument that has been pretty well discredited. The Solicitor General knew that it would be a ridiculous tactic that's why he didn't pursue it. Though the Commerce Clause really doesn't apply either, it was his best shot and he knew it. Just because he botched his defense of the AHCA in the Supreme Court doesn't mean that he is stupid enough to invoke the Militia Act.

You misunderstood me. I get it that the SG didn't use the Militia Act argument, and presumably for good reason. I just don't know the reason. You say it is lame, but don't say a reason either.

Honestly, I don' think any argument of the SG could change the mind of the five ideologues on the SCOTUS. If they want to kick Obama in the b@lls, then they will do so. And they have proven already that they can rationalize their judicial activism in any way they so choose, twisted logic not-withstanding.

Ted Hoppe
04-06-2012, 12:26 PM
I believe this is the onramp road is about single payer - universal healthcare. No matter what happens now - it will nearly be impossible to take the proposition off the table. It is the only way business can remove these costs off their books. I would believe that Hamilton, Paine and Jefferson would approve.

Y Bar Ranch
04-06-2012, 12:27 PM
You misunderstood me. I get it that the SG didn't use the Militia Act argument, and presumably for good reason. I just don't know the reason. You say it is lame, but don't say a reason either.
The Militia Act only applied to certain males between certain ages, many were exempt, and most importantly its justification is due to
an enumerated mandate to regulate the militias under Article One, Section Eight in support of the defense. Quite a bit different from the Commerce Clause.

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 12:28 PM
You misunderstood me. I get it that the SG didn't use the Militia Act argument, and presumably for good reason. I just don't know the reason. You say it is lame, but don't say a reason either.

Honestly, I don' think any argument of the SG could change the mind of the five ideologues on the SCOTUS. If they want to kick Obama in the b@lls, then they will do so. And they have proven already that they can rationalize their judicial activism in any way they so choose, twisted logic not-withstanding.


Fair enough - There have been several threads on this topic (I don't' want to repeat them all), but the gist of it is that there are provisions in the Constitution for the "common defense" and that under this clause it necessitated this action. Also, the Militia act of 1903 superseded this act and the Milia act of 1903 created a National Guard where soldiers were no longer required to purchase their own weapons, they were provided by the Army.

Peerie Maa
04-06-2012, 12:36 PM
Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.
I like the bit about taxing to provide for the general welfare. If you could pry the sticky hands of the insurance companies shareholders off of health provision, you could levy a tax to pay for a better and cheaper version.


So what would you consider socialist, and what proportion is that to those that recognize the sovereignty of the individual?I have to admit that I am having difficulty getting my head round your form of words.
If you want to know what is socialist, look to the dictionaries and Wikipedia. I think that the dictionaries are far too narrow, since they only concern themselves with state ownership of manufacture and distribution. I believe that welfare is equally important a part of the philosophy. Wiki does recognise that there are many different shades of socialism.
As to the sovereignty of the individual, I do not think that humanity is made that way, we are social animals, we evolved to live in societies, either of extended families, clans, tribes, or nations, and as such must cede sovereignty to the collective.

Concordia 33
04-06-2012, 12:43 PM
I have to admit that I am having difficulty getting my head round your form of words.
If you want to know what is socialist, look to the dictionaries and Wikipedia. I think that the dictionaries are far too narrow, since they only concern themselves with state ownership of manufacture and distribution. I believe that welfare is equally important a part of the philosophy. Wiki does recognise that there are many different shades of socialism.


In an earlier post you stated that the Constitution had sever Socialist clauses. I was asking you which ones you referring to?

SaltyBoatr
04-06-2012, 01:18 PM
Fair enough - There have been several threads on this topic (I don't' want to repeat them all), but the gist of it is that there are provisions in the Constitution for the "common defense" and that under this clause it necessitated this action. Also, the Militia act of 1903 superseded this act and the Milia act of 1903 created a National Guard where soldiers were no longer required to purchase their own weapons, they were provided by the Army.

There is also a key clause that describes "provide for...the general welfare", so I don't see the distinction. And the important thing about the Act from 1793 is that it describes the mindset of the Founding Fathers who at the time clearly believe that the role of Congress included mandating purchases by citizens as being Constitutional.

Peerie Maa
04-06-2012, 02:08 PM
In an earlier post you stated that the Constitution had sever Socialist clauses. I was asking you which ones you referring to?
You quoted it yourself.
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Concordia 33 http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3369731#post3369731)
Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.