Wouldn’t it be nice? Wouldn’t it be wonderful: If we lived in a society that could afford national health care for all who reside within our borders - legally?
Certainly.
But we do not live in such a society; nor have we ever; nor will we ever.
Still, the leftist gangs who have hijacked the American legislative processes, and executive functions are bent on ba functional system that provides health care for the majority of us, in order to install a theoretical system that (under the best of circumstances) will provide questionable services to slightly more (but not all) of us.
Accompanying significant degradation of services to those of us already covered (mostly to our satisfaction) will be an increased tax burden stacked atop tax schedules already groaning under the weight of uncounted socialistic services to the very few who are most likely to benefit from the health care carnage.
And all this is being done in leftist legislative Star Chamber, clearly mocking not only the 80% or so of the citizens who want nothing to do with the proposed train wreck, but also the legislative processes as they were intended by The Founders. American legislative processes are off the rails (by design in my opinion) and they will soon carry our functional health care system with them over the bridge and into the canyon.
Battle lines are formed along undisciplined political party structures with defectors crossing lines at will and for their own reasons. This is the poorest method to provide even a semblance of a balanced solution to the overall health care problem - unfortunately there appears to be no better method available for resolution.
So, where are we in the national health care argument?
Quibbling. Bickering over particulars; unable or unwilling to see the larger questions governing utopian-like cradle-to-grave health care for one and all. Are we really prepared to be content with an exorbitantly costly national health care mediocrity shoved down our throats?
I don’t think so.
So, why have we forfeited the legal and moral high ground in the larger battle for our individual and collective rights?
From the beginning of the argument it seems that we in opposition to this leftist monstrosity have been willing to accept without argument the premise that health care and related services are entitlements for all within our borders; and that as such they become constitutional ‘rights’.
Are they? Constitutional rights?
If so, under which Article of the Constitution are they expressly guaranteed? If not the constitution - then what other authority (ies)?
Are we with functional health care morally obligated to accept a degradation of these (paid) services for more costly substandard services so that uncovered ‘others’ can be covered under?
Where is it written?
Nowhere.
And so why have we forfeited the legal and moral high ground in this battle - without so much as a whimper? Is it because some of us no longer see any reason to defend them.
GEB
Sorry, But The Constitution Does Indeed Have An Unfortunate Phrase
Ausonius Wednesday, November 11th at 8:24AM EST (link)which - depending on the breadth of the interpretation - can be used to support the intrusion of “Hell-th Care.”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.
Under this provision Congress has the power “[t]o 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.”
“General Welfare” is the phrase the Left is using.
The only unfortunate thing
gunnerbs Wednesday, November 11th at 8:46AM EST (link)about that phrase, is that critical thinking is not taught anymore.
My understanding is that the original meaning of “general Welfare of the United States” was addressing the needs of the United States as a government. I don’t think the Constitution ever refers to the citizens of the US as “the United States.” Therefore, the general welfare clause does not give Congress the power to provide health care for the people of the United States. If it did, then why not a National Food Provision? Everyone is entitled to free food.
Now, I realize that this is not the current opinion, and hasn’t been for quite some time. There are plenty of unconstitutional laws passed under the guise of general welfare. I would submit that these are wrong, too, and that just because we have accepted those laws doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stand up to this one.
I start with the premise that NO ONE has a right to my Life, Liberty, or Property. Beyond that I’m open to discussion.
———————————
When you send a contribution to the candidate you support, send a copy of the check, or at least a note to his or her opponent, telling them why your money didn’t go there!
There's also the Commerce Clause
leftylurker Wednesday, November 11th at 8:56AM EST (link)Which has been interpreted by a variety of justices to grant huge powers to the feds.
Fwiw, I really, really, disagree with the scope of those powers, but them’s the laws of the land.
Your interpretation is lacking in several important respects
JSobieski Wednesday, November 11th at 9:03AM EST (link)First, note the locations of the words “to” and “for”
The list after “to” identifies WHAT government can do.
The list after “for” (i.e. the list that includes the “general welfare”) identifes the PURPOSES for which government power can be used.
The phrase “general welfare” is a modifier of the “to” clause, and thus serves to limit that clause. The phrase “general welfare” is not an independent grant of authority.
Second, text should be interpretted to be consistent with other portions of the text. Article I Section 8 provides a list of ennumerated powers. To interpret one clause so broadly as to render the rest of the Constitution redundant at best and contradictory at worst means that some other interpretion is correct, and that your interprettion is incorrect.
In other words, under your view of the Constitution, Article I could be reduced to “Congress can provide for the general welfare” and leave it at that.
The phrase “general welfare” is unfortunate, but not for the reasons that you state.
Maybe so, but their argument doesn't square...
rbdwiggins Wednesday, November 11th at 9:51AM EST (link)unless the US Constitution is purposely ignored or its meaning twisted.
Jefferson preemptively deflated their argument in his letter to Albert Gallatin.
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan
5555! This is what "we the people" should be demanding our Republican "leaders" talk about
ColdWarrior Wednesday, November 11th at 1:05PM EST (link)Thank you.
ColdWarrior
American first, conservative second and Republican precinct committeeman by necessity.
http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com, so you can say, “I became a precinct committeeman before it was cool.”
“Elections have consequences, my friends.” — John McCain
Agreed: The Problem Is Lack Of Education About The Constitution
Ausonius Wednesday, November 11th at 2:29PM EST (link)The understanding of how words have changed somewhat - or a great deal - in the last 200 + years, nor the historical context, nor the later debates in The Federalist Papers, are addressed, are not taken into consideration, in schools.
I think modern politicians run away from such debates precisely because, in our “sound-bite” short-attention span society, they fear people will turn them off, or that people will believe that the wool is being pulled over the brains.
As a teacher for nearly 4 decades, I can tell you that the high school teachers who can delineate the Jeffersonian argument printed above (thanks to “RBDWiggins”) - in general - d o N O T e x i s t in our schools.
And from what I can tell through my work on national examinations, which has brought me into contact with thousands of teachers throughout the years, for the few teachers who do know about Jefferson’s idea, too many will NOT pass it on to their students, but will instead pass on the idea of stretching the Constitution to make it fit modern ideas on creating a socialist welfare state.
I don't think so
Menlo Wednesday, November 11th at 3:21PM EST (link)You’ll note that people in “law” schools and those studying “Constitutional law” are almost unanimously the ones who most wish to undermine it. They are the ones who make the changes in the first place. The whole problem is exacerbated by our so-called “law” schools, most of which seem to be run and taught by virtual Communists.
“Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.” -Ann Coulter
Too Many Law Schools Are Run By Leftists
Ausonius Wednesday, November 11th at 5:00PM EST (link)As I mentioned, the left-wing is dominant in the schools, especially in History and other Social Studies.
“Strict constructionists” would be laughed at as hopelessly out of touch with the necessities of the modern age.
This is why we must also fear MAObama appointing anyone to the Supreme Court in the next 3 years. You know they will be using a fantasy, Humpty-Dumpty interpretation of the Constitution, instead of a rational, historical approach.
That's a different thing then
Menlo Wednesday, November 11th at 6:09PM EST (link)I would not call it a lack of education on the Constitution. It is actually fueled, I believe, by an intentional desire to teach the Constitution in order to better undermine it. The students have the same goals in mind.
They believe that their cause is so just and right that it trumps the law. And they will do whatever it takes, no matter what other people think, to see the law defied. That’s exactly what is going on with this “health care” bill, among many other programs of the left.
“Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.” -Ann Coulter
The dumbing down is worse than the ideology.
Achance Wednesday, November 11th at 6:23PM EST (link)A few years back I took a 400 level Con Law class just because I wanted to. The Professor was a good one, the only one in the University of Alaska who ever gave me a B, and a Catholic conservative. It was a good class with no left wing politics except a little early on from some of the students who quickly learned that they’d come to a gunfight with a toothpick. But, the first half of my senior year American Government class at my high school in rural Georgia in 1966 was spent on The Constitution, word by word and line by line with the Federalist Papers as the required supplemental reading. Frankly, I didn’t learn a thing in the college class and I supervised enough lawyers to know I’d forgotten more about The Constitution than they’d ever know.
In Vino Veritas
5 x 5. Although, if you know facts you're less likely to
David123 Wednesday, November 11th at 6:29PM EST (link)fall victim to ideologies that aren’t based on reality.
David123
Health care is a right - so is gun ownership
David123 Wednesday, November 11th at 10:15AM EST (link)You have a right to go to the doctor. You just have to pay the doctor for treating you.
You have a constitutional right to own guns. but you have to pay for your own guns and ammo.
Now there’s an idea - everybody support Pelosi-care AFTER Nancy gives all Americans all the free guns and free ammunition they want.
David123
Federalist number 41
Whitesands Wednesday, November 11th at 11:07AM EST (link)Intent seems to restrict congress to the powers listed in Article 1 section 8 .
Federalist number 41 pages 262-263 James Madison
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing had its origin with the latter.
Federalist number 42 ( Regulate Commerce )
Whitesands Wednesday, November 11th at 11:21AM EST (link)All that is mentioned is the governments ability to control tariffs, duties, import and transfer fees.
Federalist number 42 James Madison
The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought to view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs that it would nourish increasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party by resentment as well as interest to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.
Constitutionality? After Kelo v. New London?
acat Wednesday, November 11th at 12:57PM EST (link)Congress no longer follows the rules.
The Executive no longer follows the rules.
The Fourth Estate no longer follows the rules.
The Supreme Court no longer follows the rules.
The only ones left who believe in the rules are a narrow percentage of the population who are both intelligent enough to understand “rule of law” and who have a good enough education to encounter the idea.
This will not end well.
Mew
I would suggest that when the Senators are home for Thanksgiving...
JadedByPolitics Wednesday, November 11th at 1:28PM EST (link)ALL OF US go visit with them in person because it is damn near impossible to get them on the phone. I will be visiting with my Senators and I hope you all do as well and just let them know that 83% of VERY HAPPY with our health insurance and DO NOT want the govenment touching it!
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy
Good diary, but I don't think "we" have missed that argument
tcgeol Wednesday, November 11th at 4:05PM EST (link)“We” get it - its our R representatives and senators who are ignoring the obvious point. It is questionable how much of that is actually missing the point and how much involves a lack of interest in or even a purposely ignoring of the point.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
I Take Your Point.
Yahuti Thursday, November 12th at 1:13PM EST (link). . . And agree completely and without reservation.
GB
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to ‘The United States of America’ for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’ That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
De Opresso Liber
So, What I Am Seeing Is That There Is No Clear
Yahuti Wednesday, November 11th at 6:07PM EST (link)constitutional ‘Right’ to the products and services covered (what little we know of them) under the Obama/Pelosi HealthCare system.
Which means (to me) that no authorities exist for the government to strip 80 (+) % of existing health care programs from we who have them; also,
No authorities exist to compel us to pay for such a program.
Why aren’t these arguments being made? (Or, are they & I missed the Memo?).
Where are our lawyers? If this mess is passed into law is it possible to overturn it in the SC?
Where Are Our Lawyers? Who will argue this case?
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to ‘The United States of America’ for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’ That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
De Opresso Liber