Obama - Constitutional destroyer who instituted neoslavery.
Posted on 08/15/2009 3:51:47 AM PDT by Man50D
No powers can be exercised by the Congress which are prohibited by the Constitution or which are contrary to its spirit.
– Justice John McLean, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857
Is a federal government takeover of the health care system constitutional?
Some argue that under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to regulate or subsidize health care.
Michael Boldin, founder of The Tenth Amendment Center, told WND that if citizens want to understand whether health care is constitutional, they must first understand the function of the Constitution.
"The best way to look at it is that it doesn't apply to you," he said. "It doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government, and it sets the boundaries of what government is supposed to do."
Enumerated powers
In debating whether health care is constitutional, Boldin said citizens must look to the founding document to 1) determine whether the power is specifically listed there, or 2) if there isn't a specific power listed, look to the "Necessary and Proper Clause," or Article I, Section 8, clause 18.
Enumerated powers
In debating whether health care is constitutional, Boldin said citizens must look to the founding document to 1) determine whether the power is specifically listed there, or 2) if there isn't a specific power listed, look to the "Necessary and Proper Clause," or Article I, Section 8, clause 18.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Obama - Constitutional destroyer who instituted neoslavery.
NOBODY discusses the Constitution anymore because they would eventually be forced to admit about 85-90% of the Federal Government is illegal on its face.
I saw a video yesterday of an Obamacare supporter saying the Constitution says the government is to provide for the “general welfare” of the people. He said health care for all is the “general welfare”. Had I been there I would have said borrowing 12 TRILLION DOLLARS certainly is NOT in our general welfare and thus, by his argument, raising the debt ceiling is unconstitutional.
The sticking point is obvious: Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are not Constitutional, either.
However, at least patients have a nominal “right” not to accept what is being “offered,” even if they do pay for the programs with taxes. The penalties only kick in for Medicare if and when you do join in late.
The new plan is mandatory. You are automatically assigned and/or pay a penalty while refusing. Will there be alternatives, at all?
And remember, Medicare spending is set to decrease physicians’ pay by 20% in 2010. Won’t that be an incentive for doctors to compromise?
(When asked whether these programs should be abolished, I note that people of a certain age have a contract with the Country. They’ve had their money taken when they could have invested and saved on their own.)
I had not read that Federalist Papers #41 till the other day. That was a real eye-opener as to what has happened to the Federal government in the past 100 years.
I was just stunned.
The bill is unconstitutional on its face.
Only if our Supreme Court says so. We can declare a bill unconstitutional, but it's meaningless. Congress will do what it wants. Where does our Constitution authorize any federal law enforcement agencies but the Coast Guard? Look how far the Interstate Commerce Clause has been stretched - and our Supreme Court lets it go.
Once that train leaves the station, no stoppin' it.
And, he would be a typical Obamalamadingdong idiot quoting something he obviously has not read. The Constitution's preamble, which is not law, speaks of promoting the general welfare. It does not say that the gubmint is to provide general welfare. In fact, the Constitution is written in such a way as to avoid having the Federal gubmint become a large central controlling power, thus preventing it from becoming a welfare provider. There are numerous references to this in the Federalist Papers. The trouble is we have let our congresscritters get away with far too much for far too long, virtually all of which goes against the Constitution and is specifically designed insure their election and re-election.
Diapers and politicians should be changed often and for the same reason. We have the power to limit Congressional terms and it's high time we used it! Flush Congress in 2010!
Yes we are.
But the tide of public sentiment when it comes to the expansive powers of government for the most part is with the bigger government is better crowd and the politicians know this.
Nearly everyone I know is looking for something from the government. They never consider that if the government was smaller and took less from them they could very likely be able to do these things for them selves.
Politicians know that their best shot at getting re-elected is to be able to show that they brought home the bacon. Very few politicians are going to go on the campaign trail with stories of how they stopped federal money from being spent in their district.
Obama’s biggest fear is that it becomes common knowledge that his Health Care bill cuts Medicare and Excludes Special Needs patients. Cuts are what Democrats always fight. But socialized medicine is only possible with rationing and equalization of spending.
The old and the Special Needs use more Health Care than anyone else so that is where cut must be made. This is the weak spot that the Dems must fill with disinformation an we must shine the spotlight on.
No, I didn’t miss the point. I should have prefaced the statement with “For all practical purposes”. Our “esteemed” congress critters aren’t about to limit their power by voluntarily obeying our Constitution. It’s up to the Supreme Court to keep them in line - but they haven’t been doing it.
The only way We, the People can force congress to follow our Constitution is at the ballot box, but until it becomes a major issue in political campaigns that’s not about to happen - and how many people have even read it, much less understand what it states?
I for one would love to see our Supreme Court packed with true Constitutionalists but few in congress would like to see that.
hope we do hear more
That will only be possible during a small window when some states still exercise the power to say NO and mean it, to the federal government.
When considering if “health care” is a “right”;
I think about some of the things we know for a fact are a “right”.
For instance, consider the right to freedom of religion...
or the right to keep and bear arms...
Nothing there is interpreted to mean that the government should
provide me with a religion and build me a place of worship.
Nothing there is interpreted to mean that the government should
provide me with weapons.
So, I conclude that even IF you make the leap
and accept that health care is a “right”,
that is still a far cry from being interpreted
to mean that the government should provide it for you.
When I have this conversation with a liberal,
they have nothing to respond with.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's the only escape, but certainly the less messy option. The other option is very ugly.
An interesting side note, I've been noticing quite a few folks flying Gadsden flags in my neck of the woods. One local restaurant owner/Patriot has been flying one for over a year. Last weekend was the infamous Hwy 127 400 mile junk sale. I saw several dozen Gadsden flags flying over various vendors.
Of course I believe the whole idea is unconstitutional, especially if it bars individuals from seeking, and companies from selling, private health insurance. My hope is that if this monstrosity passes, it will be challenged and overturned.
One “nutty” idea I had was as follows: say the bill gradually prohibits private insurance. What would prevent companies in other countries (Canada, even China, for example) from selling supplemental polies to Americans? That is, “you get sick, we pay your bills.” I guess this would require the Dems bill to also prohibit providers from accepting payment outside the system?
Sorry if this is rambling or incoherent; just floating ideas here.
ROFLMAO!
The twisting of the general welfare clause always makes me laugh.
Section 8, Clause 1 - provide for the common Defence and general Welfare
The conjunction 'and' makes this a single power. Congress has the authority to promote the general welfare by providing for the common defense of the country....and that's all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.