It is arguable that requiring universal coverage would "promote the general welfare;" and if so Congress could properly enact it based on its power to enact laws "necessary and proper." As has been noted above, congressional power to regulate interstate commerce could provide additional Constitutional justification.
But if you use that standard as a measure of what congress can legally do, what is it that congress may not legally do? That strikes me as a blank check. Someone could argue that nationalizing certain businesses like energy producers is necessary to "promote the general welfare." The point is, once you give the state this kind of power, how do you stop them?
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
It is arguable that requiring universal coverage would "promote the general welfare;" and if so Congress could properly enact it based on its power to enact laws "necessary and proper." As has been noted above, congressional power to regulate interstate commerce could provide additional Constitutional justification.
Constitutionality would be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court which, for better or worse, does not give advisory opinions.
It was my impression that reporters on beats like the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court usually brought with them some knowledge of how government works. One suspects our Inquiring Reporter was well aware of the above provisions of the Constitution, and simply couldn't pass up the chance to ask a loaded question. Speaker Pelosi's answer might have been better, I suppose, but it was hardly inappropriate.
The answer was: "are you serious"......to me that's an answer much like: how did this reporter get in here.
Also I beleive the language says promote the general welfare, not be the general welfare. As already said, the line has already been crossed we are on uncharted ground already. What comes next?
__________________ Warning! Fox News is not White house approved.
The answer was: "are you serious"......to me that's an answer much like: how did this reporter get in here.
What Pelosi's response reveals is how little consideration she gives to the Constitution. She has already concluded that the Constitution gives her the power to do anything she wants. Since she can regulate interstate commerce, she can force under penalty of law, people to pay for something they dont want. One of the plans had penalties of up to a year in prison and $25,000 fines for people who refuse to buy health insurance. That this sort of thing is being contemplated in the US is unbelievable.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
That issue was addressed during the civil war, the side that struggled against Federal power lost. There is a reason it is refered to by many as the "War of State Rights." The answer is you elect representatives who represent your views.
Originally Posted by lordbt
But if you use that standard as a measure of what congress can legally do, what is it that congress may not legally do? That strikes me as a blank check. Someone could argue that nationalizing certain businesses like energy producers is necessary to "promote the general welfare." The point is, once you give the state this kind of power, how do you stop them?
__________________ LOVE is the LAW!
Disclamer: Awl poastings bye ACougar R subgict two speling and gramaticole arrers, ef ewe no hou itt shood bee speled thin yo probly noe wat waz mint, moar dan dis 'E cairs knot.
That issue was addressed during the civil war, the side that struggled against Federal power lost. There is a reason it is refered to by many as the "War of State Rights." The answer is you elect representatives who represent your views.
I agree, the last battle was lost..
__________________ Warning! Fox News is not White house approved.
That issue was addressed during the civil war, the side that struggled against Federal power lost. There is a reason it is refered to by many as the "War of State Rights." The answer is you elect representatives who represent your views.
And those representatives have no limits on their power? Not sure why you would advocate the ability of the majority to tyrannize the minority. Does the concept of individual rights mean nothing to you?
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
I believe even the Congress that put the limits on goverment still didn't want to be restricted by it.
The serpants* excuse: "ssSurely, the consstitution doessn't mean to resstrict thisss law. It isss well intended, and for the good of the people."
Even the most offensive laws in the world, were passed
"for the good of the people". Just as in some countries, people were killed for the good of the people, Hitler killed the Jews, for the good of the people.
We here a more specific selling point now adays:
"Do it for the children..." (for the good of the younger people.)
This is why Congress has not been so one sided in a long time. Because ultimate power will corrupt ultimately.
But I believe the more conservative Democrats will keep the power in check.
Pelosi: "Are you kidding?"
seems to clearly say the serpants* excuse.
*the serpant in the garden of Eden
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,
and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you didn't think you could do before.
R. Emanuel COS
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
Originally Posted by ArnautDaniel To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It takes a certain naivete to take a politician at their word....
"Remember laws are our friends, its the lawyers we have to look out for."
the three stooges, Political jokes aren't as funny after they're elected. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A.I am nobody
B.nobody is perfect
A=b&B=c, so A=C
C. I am perfect To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Severin Rheinfelser, SCA(period 1300-1350)
First Equestrian Champion of the Flaming Gyphon 2009 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
On steed Maximillion. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Islam is not the problem, blind faith is.
Christians need to cast their nets in the sea of despair, not in the aquarium of church-----come, I will make you fishers of men.
But if you use that standard as a measure of what congress can legally do, what is it that congress may not legally do? That strikes me as a blank check. Someone could argue that nationalizing certain businesses like energy producers is necessary to "promote the general welfare." The point is, once you give the state this kind of power, how do you stop them?
There has always been a strain of thought, going back to Hamilton, that the Congress has broad powers under the general welfare clause. And since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation. So we have a federal government very involved in regulating the economy, along with tax supported social welfare programs, like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. At this point, I think the most secure way to Constitutionally limit this power would be an amendment. It would have to be worded somewhow to clearly and explicity limit Congressional authority under the commerce and general welfare clauses. And it would be extremely difficult to pass. Although, amendments have been passed before from grass-roots efforts. Prohibition and women's suffrage are examples. So it's not impossible,
__________________ I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. --- Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Linear Mode
