Just what article of the Constitution of The United States is the Obama administration relying on in the undertaking of “healthcare reform”?
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
James Madison
Are you going to post Hamilton’s broader view for purposes of showing both sides of the debate, or do you have an axe to grind?
What constitutional clause justifies the invasion of Iraq by U.S. military? (Not the “common defense” clause – that one went out with the WMDs.)
Also, health insurance is generally sold by companies doing business across state lines. If the Interstate Commerce Clause can regulate wheat grown for on premises consumption, it certainly can regulate an industry founded in conducting bets across state lines.
No, I’m not going to post Hamilton’s broader view. If that is what your viewpoint relys on, you post it.
I’ll just rely on “the father of the Constistution”, as it is my viewpoint that the federal government is acting outside its purview in healthcare reform.
Hmm… two wrongs do make a right?
I think you’re positing more than two wrongs, though - wouldn’t your interpretation suggest that the federal government isn’t allow to do many of the things it does? It already provides health care through Medicare and Medicaid, for example.
Yeah, I guess we’ve, long ago, crossed the Rubicon.
For better and for worse I’d say that’s the case, yes.
And to continue on that path makes about as much sense as lamenting the deficeit spending of the previous administration, and then doubling the deficeit as a way to fix things.
You mean there are limits to federal power? Who knew?
Clearly this means that they can establish a national healthcare system. I don’t know how anyone could read it to be otherwise.
Cool quote, bro. Where in the Constitution is it?
I’m wondering if the OP is implicitly saying that Medicare is unconstitutional? Does anyone think that Medicare is going to be eliminated by the Supreme Court?
I see what you are doing, but surely Madison’s belief must be correct. Why would the General Welfare clause mean that Congress could do anything at all that it felt was in the general welfare and then go on to list other powers?
If your interpretation was true, then the whole list of Congressional powers could be simply “Do what you think best”.
Are you saying that the Supreme Court is infalliable?
As the Court observed in United States v. Butler:
Thus this broad power allows Congress to fill a rôle that the states cannot fill, to provide a coördinated, concerted, national organization to solve problems that transcend state borders and consequently state powers and abilities.
Infallible, no; but consistent, yes. I’m not seeing how a constitutional argument against UHC would be persuasive if a constitutional argument against Medicare has no chance of success in the courts. And as frustrating as it may be at times, the Supreme Court’s fallibility does not change the fact that their opinions are authoritative.
So, why is UHC constitutionally worse than Medicare?
His interpretation is not dispositive. That of the SCOTUS is, and it has gone back and forth over the centuries regarding the breadth and scope of the “implied powers” clause. At the present stage of development of constitutional law, it appears UHC would be constitutional (after all, it is no bigger a deal than Social Security, the constitutionality of which has not been seriously challenged in living memory). You might have noticed that its opponents, in Congress and elsewhere, are for the most part raising political arguments against it, not constitutional arguments. In fact, yours is the very first I’ve encountered.
You mean “the”? It’s the second word.