Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ravingnutter
From what I have read, the left has conveniently twisted the "General Welfare Clause" to include health care:

Below is an excerpt from founding father James Madison's Federalist Paper #45 expounding on the power s of the federal and state governments. Note state powers extend to ordinary courses of affairs and internal order. That includes health care.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
8 posted on 09/11/2009 1:13:06 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Man50D
You are correct...I was actually out looking for a response to their claim after I posted that. I just found this from the Heritage Foundation:

In short, as Madison argued, Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can only do so for purposes of common defense or general welfare, in the service of the powers granted to it elsewhere in Article I.

Second, “Necessary and Proper” gives Congress the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.” Like the general welfare clause, this clause was not a stand-alone grant of power to Congress. Rather, it authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary (and also proper) to make the other grants of authority in Article I effectual.

In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution. This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started.

Lastly, proponents might argue that national health insurance is part of Congress power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.” While progressives have often used this clause to expand the federal government, it does not apply especially to the creation of a national health insurance, because to create and engage in commerce is not the same thing as regulating commerce among the several states.

Is National Health Insurance Constitutional?


9 posted on 09/11/2009 1:25:22 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson