Is National Health Insurance Constitutional?

[Revmitchell]

................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.........


More Here

 

[donnA]

obama doesn't believe the constution should exist, so he has no problem violating it.

 

[Johnv]

Federally provided healthcare is not unconstitutional. Medicare is an example. Federal programs such as Medicare fall under the commerce, taxing and spending powers granted in the Constitution. I'm flat-out against federalized healthcare, but it is not unconstitutional.

 

[Revmitchell]

Since it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level. And the op addresses the commerce clause and why it does not apply.

 

[Johnv]

The OP is wrong. Both the commerce and taxation sections of the Constitution have been tried and tested in the Supreme Court numerous times since 1824, with rulings that are contrary to the OP opinion.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

The op is correct

 

[SeekingTruth]

IMHO the OP is correct. The writers never dreamed that the legislative, executive and judicial branches would all make such wild extensions of the Constitution. They believed a strict interpretation was required and would be adhered to. Privileges and authorities all three branches have arrogated to themselves are not identified in the Constitution. Only by very loose interpretation and a good imagination can they be found.

 

[Johnv]

Again, the issue has been reviewed by federal courts numerous times over the last 200 years, and this issues has generally never been found to be unconstitutional.

 

[billwald]

Madison was wrong and/or lied. The Constitution was a scam as the anti-constitutionalists claimed. We got the legal system that Madison wanted to give us.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Again, the issue has been reviewed by federal courts numerous times over the last 200 years, and this issues has generally never been found to be unconstitutional.

Johnv, don't you know? The righties on the BB have the power to overrule SCOTUS if they disagree? I think it is in Article XXXV or so.

 

[RAdam]

The SCOTUS has been wrong numerous times. Like, for instance, Roe v Wade.

Modern interpretation of the constitution is wrong. It's not what the SCOTUS thinks in 2009 that matters, it is what the writers and signers meant in 1787.

 

[Johnv]

SCOTUS has indeed reversed itself on specific occaisions, such as Plessey v Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education. But AFIK, it has never outright overturned its own ruling (if anyone has case law to that effect, please let me know).

I figured it would be a matter of time before someone commented about "modern interpretations" of the constitution. That's why I noted that this issue has been heard as far back as the early 1800's.

 

[RAdam]

And it is clear what the framers meant, which is all that matters.

 

[Johnv]

George Washington was a framer, and he engaged in many actions that were met with the same "not constitutional" criticisms used here.

 

[RAdam]

Your arguments are weak.

What is the question we ask when reading the bible? What did the author intend? That's what matters. It doesn't matter what this means to me, a 21st century American, but what did it mean when it was written. The meaning of the bible is static, it means today what it did back then.

Much the same it shoudl be with the constitution. What did the authors intend? I shouldn't be saying what I think but should be trying to figure out what they meant. It's pretty clear what they meant.

 

[Johnv]

Your arguments are weak.

On the contrary, those who claim an unconstitutionality where none exists are weak. They have no comprehension of how the constitution works.

What is the question we ask when reading the bible? What did the author intend? That's what matters. It doesn't matter what this means to me, a 21st century American, but what did it mean when it was written. The meaning of the bible is static, it means today what it did back then.

You're right, but interpreting scripture is not the same as interpreting the Constitution. The constitution says that the Supreme Court decide what the framers meant, and if something is constitutional. The supereme court has already heard the argument claimed in this manner, numerous times, since the early 1800's.

 

[OldRegular]

Federally provided healthcare is not unconstitutional. Medicare is an example. Federal programs such as Medicare fall under the commerce, taxing and spending powers granted in the Constitution. I'm flat-out against federalized healthcare, but it is not unconstitutional.

Obviously you are not a Constitutional scholar.

Nothing the Congress has passed in recent years is constitutional except perhaps an over bloated budget. The Federal government is tasked in the Constitution with defending the country and delivering the mail. The postal system is indicative of the inability of the Federal Government to do anything. Only the blood of our young men has defended the country in spite of all those the stupid liberals who inhabit DC swilling slop at the government trough.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional. The list is too long to continue

 

[Revmitchell]

Dr. Alan keys who holds a constitutional scholar agrees that is is uncosntitutional.

 

[Johnv]

Obviously you are not a Constitutional scholar.

That makes two of us, I suppose. But it does not take a constitutional scholar to know that the job of interpreting the constitution falls to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS has heard this same argument since the time of Washington.

Nothing the Congress has passed in recent years...

Knowing

The postal system is indicative of the inability of the Federal Government to do anything.

Interesting you should see the ability to have a letter delivered in an average of 1.5 days for less than 50 cents to be inefficient. But that's off-topic.

Dr. Alan keys who holds a constitutional scholar agrees that is is uncosntitutional.

Then he is welcome to sue and take the case to SCOTUS. They will likely strike it down.

 

[SeekingTruth]

On the contrary, those who claim an unconstitutionality where none exists are weak. They have no comprehension of how the constitution works.

You're right, but interpreting scripture is not the same as interpreting the Constitution. The constitution says that the Supreme Court decide what the framers meant, and if something is constitutional. The supereme court has already heard the argument claimed in this manner, numerous times, since the early 1800's.

In just what part of the Constitution does it state

Supreme Court decide what the framers meant, and if something is constitutional

. It merely states that

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

In Section 2,

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Of course to liberals, as with the rest of the Constitution, these two paragraphs have meanings and powers that no other human being can find.

The Constitution does not work. It is to be applied as written, not interpreted. Show me one place in the Constitution where the power of interpretation is granted.