Constitutionality of Healthcare Reform Bill: Senate Vote

[Theodotos I]

The Senate is set to vote tomorrow on the constitutionality of the current healthcare reform legislation, as indicated in the article here. Your thoughts, gentlemen.

[cfmonkey45]

Three arguments:

1. Necessary and Proper Clause
2. Congress' express right to allocate money whereever it is needed
3. implied powers of Congress

The separation of State and Federal laws was meant to prevent a tyrannical government from taking control, a la the Jacobins. This firm limitation was also a compromise, since the thirteen original states were more or less independent polities. Now, two hundred plus years later, that paradigm has substantially changed. We are much more centralized, and now, the very idea that Health Care should and could be unconstitutional is completely laughable. This is a government allowed by the people, for the people, and governed by them, therefore, if a substantial part of Americans wish for a healthcare bill that would greatly improve their lives then they should get it. It's part of the social contract with our government.

[Theodotos I]

Three arguments:

1. Necessary and Proper Clause
2. Congress' express right to allocate money whereever it is needed
3. implied powers of Congress

The separation of State and Federal laws was meant to prevent a tyrannical government from taking control, a la the Jacobins. This firm limitation was also a compromise, since the thirteen original states were more or less independent polities. Now, two hundred plus years later, that paradigm has substantially changed. We are much more centralized, and now, the very idea that Health Care should and could be unconstitutional is completely laughable. This is a government allowed by the people, for the people, and governed by them, therefore, if a substantial part of Americans wish for a healthcare bill that would greatly improve their lives then they should get it. It's part of the social contract with our government.

Back this one up a moment. If your argument is correct, then one of two things should happen. Either the Constitution should be amended to allow for the provision of healthcare, or our elected representatives should stop taking oaths to "protect and defend" the Constitution. One of the two.

EDIT: Motiv, what are you trying to say with that one-liner?

[Gaidin]

Back this one up a moment. If your argument is correct, then one of two things should happen. Either the Constitution should be amended to allow for the provision of healthcare, or our elected representatives should stop taking oaths to "protect and defend" the Constitution. One of the two.

The Congress is already authorized to lay taxes in order to provide for the general welfare and defense of the country. No amendment is needed for healthcare. Read your Constitution before you make statements like this.

[Theodotos I]

No, I'm afraid you're the one who needs to reread their copy. Healthcare is not in the bill of rights, and applying the "general welfare" clause to legislation that would give us a healthcare system on par with the UK is laughable. Read some history before you post, man.

[Gaidin]

No, I'm afraid you're the one who needs to reread their copy. Healthcare is not in the bill of rights, and applying the "general welfare" clause to legislation that would give us a healthcare system on par with the UK is laughable. Read some history before you post, man.

Defense isn't in the bill of rights either. Would you like us to stop passing a DoD budget now too?

[Martin N]

The Congress is already authorized to lay taxes in order to provide for the general welfare and defense of the country. No amendment is needed for healthcare. Read your Constitution before you make statements like this.

Taxation without representation.

[Darth Red]

Now, two hundred plus years later, that paradigm has substantially changed.

I don't like this argument at all. You are correct and the times have changed and will change again, but the theme of the document allways has remained the same. That means not telling us when and where to buy heathcare.

This is a government allowed by the people, for the people, and governed by them, therefore, if a substantial part of Americans wish for a healthcare bill that would greatly improve their lives then they should get it. It's part of the social contract with our government.

Well, the automobile has greatly improved the lives of many Americans. Would it be Constitutional of the government to force it's citizens to buy, say a Government General Motors vehicle or face a fine if you don't?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though I belive the word 'welfare' in the Constitution has been bastardized in the last century, I could possibly agree to some type of welfare or subsidy for those with severe medical complications and costs. However that couldn't be at the expence of everyone else, or ie forcing everyone to buy into a public plan or fine those of us without heath insurace to redistribute it to other Americans.

I have been saying for a while now that this doesn't feel Constitutional to me at all. Glad to see it's catching on with a couple of politicians so I don't feel like a lone crazy Republican.

[Monarchist]

The problem seems to be that the majority of Americans aren't exactly in favour of this. Polls are dubious because they only represent less than 1% of the population at any given time. Constitutionality itself doesn't seem to matter anymore, because large majorities of people who might oppose an un-Constitutional law are just ignored. I think the general welfare clause is a little too broadly taken...

[motiv-8]

Supreme Court.

[motiv-8]

Either the Constitution should be amended to allow for the provision of healthcare, or our elected representatives should stop taking oaths to "protect and defend" the Constitution.

What an absurd false dilemma.

[Theodotos I]

What an absurd false dilemma.

There is nothing absurd about it. Please show me in the Constitution where Congress or the President are empowered to force private citizens to purchase the products of a company against their will. If it is not in the Constitution, then the Constitution either needs to be amended, or our representatives need to stop perjuring themselves when they take the oath of office.

[motiv-8]

If it is not in the Constitution, then the Constitution either needs to be amended, or our representatives need to stop perjuring themselves when they take the oath of office.

So incredibly inane.

I take it you also want to a Constitutional amendment for all other services conducted under the same clauses, like the military. Christ.

The Congress is already authorized to lay taxes in order to provide for the general welfare and defense of the country. No amendment is needed for healthcare. Read your Constitution before you make statements like this.

This.

Please show me in the Constitution where Congress or the President are empowered to force private citizens to purchase the products of a company against their will.

No such thing is occurring, so calm down.

Finally, it is the Supreme Court which is granted the powers to decide whether a law is constitutional, so this entirely notion is stupid.

[Theodotos I]

Have you actually read any of the legislation? Now, granted, it's two thousand pages, so I'll excuse a little ignorance on the subject. However, if the bill passes as planned, you will either avail yourself of health insurance or go to jail. How is that not forcing you to buy something?

EDIT: @Gaidin: Provision for defense is in the main body of the Constitution. Let's not make silly arguments, shall we?

[Gaidin]

Have you actually read any of the legislation? Now, granted, it's two thousand pages, so I'll excuse a little ignorance on the subject. However, if the bill passes as planned, you will either avail yourself of health insurance or go to jail. How is that not forcing you to buy something?

Actually if we were to assume that the senate bill is how the final product ended up word for word you wouldn't go to jail for no insurance, you'd be charged a tax. However the two bills still have to be reconciled, so everything in both bills is still in play, including the Public Option. Get back to me on the constitutionality of the bill when there is a bill from congress and not two bills from the Senate/House.

You honestly lack grounds yet to say that anything they have is really unconstitutional, and if you have grounds, you're certainly not making a very good case, and are instead just screaming "BAD BAD BAD" at the top of your lungs.

[Theodotos I]

Actually if we were to assume that the senate bill is how the final product ended up word for word you wouldn't go to jail for no insurance, you'd be charged a tax. However the two bills still have to be reconciled, so everything in both bills is still in play, including the Public Option. Get back to me on the constitutionality of the bill when there is a bill from congress and not two bills from the Senate/House.

You honestly lack grounds yet to say that anything they have is really unconstitutional, and if you have grounds, you're certainly not making a very good case, and are instead just screaming "BAD BAD BAD" at the top of your lungs.

And if you don't pay the "tax", which is more appropriately called a "fine" in the House of Representatives? If you don't pay, you go to jail. For what crime? Failing to comply with unconstitutional legislation?

[Gaidin]

And if you don't pay the "tax", which is more appropriately called a "fine" in the House of Representatives? If you don't pay, you go to jail. For what crime? Failing to comply with unconstitutional legislation?

Ask the IRS, I'm betting they've got a standard list of what you get charged with if you don't pay some tax or another. Might be able to find it on their website no less. Either way, take it to SCOTUS. They've got a reputation for striking down portions of controversial bills to leave the other parts intact.

Taxation without representation.

You mean as in passed by the elected representatives of the states? What are you smoking and can I have some too?

[Admiral Piett]

Have you actually read any of the legislation? Now, granted, it's two thousand pages, so I'll excuse a little ignorance on the subject. However, if the bill passes as planned, you will either avail yourself of health insurance or go to jail. How is that not forcing you to buy something?

EDIT: @Gaidin: Provision for defense is in the main body of the Constitution. Let's not make silly arguments, shall we?

Since when has Congress or the Executive Office ever been Constitutional in the past 30 years?

While I do get that our Constitution is supposed to protect us from abuses of power, it does significantly deter progress towards developing solutions to new problems that arise. Issues never even dreamed of when the time the Constitution was very divisively ratified. Much to the chagrin of the anti-federalist camp especially voiced most especially by Jefferson and Madison.

[Martin N]

The healthcare will still be under insurance companies, which will tax you if you dont buy it, you dont have representation with that tax, and then for all the immigrants who have to have health care who wont have representation even in congress because there not a full citizen, again no representation.

Its basically just the same as the insurance we have now, except your forced into buying it, youll be screwed over and over just like we are now.

[Gaidin]

The healthcare will still be under insurance companies, which will tax you if you dont buy it, you dont have representation with that tax, and then for all the immigrants who have to have health care who wont have representation even in congress because there not a full citizen, again no representation.

The government taxes you there genius. Good god. And even if it were something so inane as a private company taxing you, fact of the matter is, the law was passed by elected representatives which makes 'No Taxation Without Representation' the single hugest misnomer in American history. And that's pretty big. I commend you.