Is National Health Insurance Constitutional?

[Johnv]

Whoa! Are you saying that it is not the job of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution? Are you seriously saying that?

It's sad that an immigrant like myself knows more about the constitution than many who were born here.

 

[SeekingTruth]

Where is "interpret" used in the Constitution in relation to powers/duties of the Supreme Court. Cite Article and Section number please. Otherwise you have no claim to superior knowledge of the Constitution.

 

[Johnv]

Interpetation is the ability of SCOTUS to decide cases based on its review of law. Article III gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction (authority to review) cases. The first time this ability to review was tested was in 1803 in the case of Marbury vs Madison.

Before you go off with "the word 'interpret'" isn't in the constitution, neither is "the elastic clause", "separation of powers", or "innocent until proven guilty" are not in the constitution either, but those concepts are clearly in existence.

 

[SeekingTruth]

The Constitution does NOT give the Court power to interpret. The Court is to APPLY the Constitution not find things/powers there that do not exist, such as "right to abortion". You still maintain that the Constitution grants interpretive power to the Court. WHERE?

 

[Johnv]

Asked and answered.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Does the Constitution give preachers tax breaks? Silly question deserves a silly answer.

 

[SeekingTruth]

Marbury vs Madison was decided by the Court, probably using powers it does not have, but since there is no appeal from the SC the ruling stands. In fact a careful reading of the decision shows the court in reality was ruling on an effort by Congress to change the power the constitution did give it, in this case original jurisdiction over certain classes of action. Marbury had argued that the constitution merely set a floor and that Congress coud change that floor.

Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Consequently, Marshall found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict.

Further

So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

No interpretation here.

 

[SeekingTruth]

Asked and answered.

Asked not answered. Typical lib finding facts not present.

 

[Johnv]

Oh, not, not the "L" word again! Even sillier, considering that I'm 100% against the health bill, and am not by any stretch an Obama fan.

I'll repeat it for the hearing impaired. Interpetation is the ability of SCOTUS to decide cases based on its review of law. Article III gives the Supreme Court authority to review cases, and rule in accordance with how they read the Constitution. The first time this ability to review was tested was in 1803 in the case of Marbury vs Madison.

The notion that SCOTUS can't intpret based on the absence of the word "interpret" is silly. The process of law review is the how the interpretation occurs for SCOTUS and all other levels of the judiciary. The phrases "the elastic clause", "separation of powers", or "innocent until proven guilty" are not in the constitution either, but those concepts are clearly in existence.

 

[alatide]

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

If "common welfare" doesn't include health care for all who need it what does it include?

 

[OldRegular]

If "common welfare" doesn't include health care for all who need it what does it include?

For the Marxist/democrats it means whatever they want including the reduction of the country to a third world country. They are ashamed of the success of this country in the world. Admit it!

 

[saturneptune]

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.

So what have you been smoking?