There’s a pretty stark difference. I, as a citizen of this country, have a right to be here. The federal government following the precedent of the ACA can compel me to buy Trump University Diplomas, Trump Steaks, GM cars, and broccoli to their hearts content just by virtue of being alive.
Auto insurance is different. There is no requirement to purchase auto insurance. To exercise the privilege of driving on the public road, I need to demonstrate my ability to pay for a minimum amount of liability I may incur while doing so.
You ask if the government should exercise the power to compel my investment in Trump Tower. That’s the wrong question in my view - the government shouldn’t have this power and this question should be off the table.
Except in this particular case, we’re talking about a demographic (poor, sick, vulnerable) for whom moving out of state is probably just as difficult as moving out of the country, financially and otherwise.
Again, I’d feel more inclined to go along with this position if it was accompanied with ANY reason whatsoever for the poor, sick, and disabled to go along with it. As it is, those who advocate as you do in government seem content to just ignore what happens to those people, and I don’t see how that’s tenable, sustainable, or humane.
I just don’t understand what possible benefits you see that could get close to justifying the cost in humans suffering and loss of freedom.
For the same reason Vermont could not do it: You are already spending all the money. You got Medicare, Medicaid, VA, IHA, Childrens etc, etc and all the bureaucracy and gatekeeping that goes with having upteen different systems doing overlapping work.
Adding another layer of provision to the unholy pile isn’t going to be affordable, athogh it is a very American way of trying to fix healthcare.
Please note that I have yet to say: 1) if I believe the ACA was a valid exercise of federal power under the Constitution, 2) if I believe the ACA was a valid exercise of power in the sense of something that should have been done, or 3) Hi, Opal!
The point still is being missed here: Bricker is attempting to assert that the ACA should not have been passed for reasons, reasons which have yet to be fleshed out fully in my opinion (are they based on lack of valid power, or lack of how that power should be used?). But they are reasons that have to do with his vision of how the government should work. He has a framework in mind, a set of rules by which people in power in the government should limit their exercise of what is otherwise raw naked power.
If the justification for the ACA is simply, “They did it, because they had the power, and that’s all the justification they need,” then Bricker can justifiably reply that today’s passage of the ACHA was justified by the fact that “they had the power, and that’s all the justification they need.” Principles of government be damned, in other words; just do what you want when you have the power. That’s not a good idea. Do you think it is a good idea?
As for the rest of your post (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), have you really been reading what I’ve been posting in the thread?
OK, but the problem I see with interpreting the General Welfare clause so broadly is that it, in effect, gives unlimited powers to the Feds, when the constitution clearly is not intended to do that. The government could declare that “education” is part of the general welfare and that Trump U. is uniquely qualified to provide that education in the same way that it tells us not only that we must by insurance, but what type of insurance we must buy.
Do you believe the federal government has the power to draft you into the armed forces of the country? If you say yes to this, I’d assert that the rest of your complaint is pure hypocrisy, because the only “choice” you are making in that case is the same choice I offered: stay here and live or move elsewhere (an option many who didn’t want to be drafted took).
The Supreme Court decided the federal government did have the power. It was decided within the framework of how our government works so the ACA was not a raw exercise of unchecked power. All the “i’s” were dotted and “t’s” were crossed as regards the passage of laws in the US.
Now, anyone can certainly argue that, in their opinion, the Supreme Court got it wrong. No problem with that. We do that all the time here.
But to contend it was passed because they strong armed everyone is too much.
I am opposed to conscription. The federal government has exercised this power previously, obviously. They have also forced people to purchase health insurance under the ACA. I am opposed to both.
The ACA is not analogous to a hypothetical bill compelling people to pay tuition at Trump University. The analogous bill would instead compel people to pay for tuition at the university of their choice. While I don’t think that this would be a wise move, I see no fundamental objection to government being able to issue that compulsion.
Or, on the other side of the coin, the analogous situation to being forced to pay tuition at Trump University would be to be forced to buy health insurance from one specific company. And that I would find just as objectionable as the Trump U one.
Tell me, if you please, from the “plain meaning” of the words in the General Welfare clause, how the ACA is an unconstitutional exercise of power?
Tell me, if you please, from the “plain meaning” of the words in the General Welfare clause, how the Trump University Forced Payment Act is an unconstitutional exercise of power?
Tell me, if you please, from the “plain meaning” of the words in the General Welfare clause how ANY limit on the taxing and spending of money by the federal government for something that improves the “welfare” of the people as a whole can be considered unconstitutional use of power?
Be careful: you may be asserting that the ACHA is unconstitutional in your answer…
I am opposed to conscription, too. But my question is not whether you are in favor of it or oppose it. My question is: do you believe it is a constitutional exercise of federal power?
No, I’m asking why they should accept a “you’re going to die on the streets, but that’s what the law demands” as a response to their problems. All this talk about enumerated powers is fine and important, but seems rarely, if ever, accompanied by any attempt, or even discussion, at addressing the core issue of the particular law we’re talking about. Why should anyone who’s sick, or who has a family member who’s sick, or might one day become sick, support the conservative viewpoint? I’m asking those with that viewpoint to answer that question.
Personally, I find it a bit unfortunate that, as a man who has declared himself an adherent of an ethic implying that we ARE, in fact, our brother’s keepers, you are giving a good impression of someone who considers his obligation to that ethic fulfilled by an expression that he is sorry to learn of another’s misfortune.
thats the wrong question to ask me. i dont think much of what our govt does or the way they do it is a good idea.
but no “Principles of government” have been damned here. “just do what you want when you have the power” is the way our govt has been run since the begining.
the whole of my response was to the statement that it was a “dangerous assertion”. i was saying that power and precedence has always been the way. if i credited that statement to your personal philosophy wrongly, i apologize.
