Health Care Reform Unconstitutional?

[Lord MJ]

I remember seeing this debated somewhere before but I can't find the thread.

Anyway

Creating a public health care plan is against the constitution because it isn't in there. The constitution includes everything the gov can do. If it's not in there they can't do it.

Any refutations. My best shot would be that congress can create laws to create whatever it sees fit provided that the provisions of that law don't violate the constitution. If a UHC bill contained a provision saying that all citizens must install chips in their heads to monitor their thoughts, then that would be unconstitutional for example, but not the creation of UHC in and of itself.

[Samuel]

Creating a public health care plan is against the constitution because it isn't in there. The constitution includes everything the gov can do. If it's not in there they can't do it.

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,

To make all laws which shall be 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, or in any department or officer thereof.

[Johonebesus]

Congress has the power "to promote the general welfare". The general interpretation is that the Congress can do almost anything for the good of the nation as long as it isn't forbidden in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't specifically grant the government the power to regulate the airwaves or create national parks or give money for education with strings attached either.

This is just another little kernel in the vomit of talking points the republicans are spewing.

[Broomstick]

As insurance crosses state lines it comes under the regulation of interstate commerce, which, historically, has been used as a justification for quite a few things.

[Dominus Atheos]

I remember seeing this debated somewhere before but I can't find the thread.

Anyway

Creating a public health care plan is against the constitution because it isn't in there. The constitution includes everything the gov can do. If it's not in there they can't do it.

Any refutations. My best shot would be that congress can create laws to create whatever it sees fit provided that the provisions of that law don't violate the constitution. If a UHC bill contained a provision saying that all citizens must install chips in their heads to monitor their thoughts, then that would be unconstitutional for example, but not the creation of UHC in and of itself.

Hit them back with the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution specifically says that just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it can't be done.

[General Zod]

The fact that you can add or remove amendments to the constitution makes this argument entirely full of shit, but that's not really surprising.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I remember seeing this debated somewhere before but I can't find the thread.

Anyway

Creating a public health care plan is against the constitution because it isn't in there. The constitution includes everything the gov can do. If it's not in there they can't do it.

Any refutations. My best shot would be that congress can create laws to create whatever it sees fit provided that the provisions of that law don't violate the constitution. If a UHC bill contained a provision saying that all citizens must install chips in their heads to monitor their thoughts, then that would be unconstitutional for example, but not the creation of UHC in and of itself.

Samuel hit the nail on the head. Combine the Necessary and Proper clause and the Commerce Clause.

[Duckie]

The commerce clause is so wide it allows the US Government to pass laws regulating baseball. Anything less absurd than that is implicitly constitutional.

Under strict literalist interpretation, the US is not allowed to build nuclear weapons, as it is only allowed to keep a Standing Army, not a Standing Nuclear Weapons Site.

Oh, what's that? The founding fathers didn't predict nuclear weapons? Hey, it turns out telephones, the internet, womens' rights, gay rights, the space race and social welfare nets weren't predicted by them either yet the US government did or has done all of those.

They were fucking men, not prophets, and Conservatives really need to cease their creepy idolatry.

[Patrick Degan]

Commerce clause. Over 150 years of case law before the Supreme Court backs this.

Besides, the scope of the Federal government's powers is not defined by what isn't expressly allowed, only that which is expressly forbidden. Nothing in the Constitution forbids Congress from acting as a national legislature to pass laws necessary to the public good for the entire nation, so long as whatever measure passed is not expressly forbidden. Conservatives, as always, are full of shit on this.

[Vehrec]

If a man in kansas pays money to a man in Iowa for his dental work, the commerce clause applies. If a man in California pays a woman in Nevada for her 'services', the commerce clause applies. If any money at any point is involved and things cross state lines, Congress can play the interstate commerce card.

[Knife]

Ah, another issue that was settled over 200 years ago between the Federalists and anti-federalists. Hamilton won and Jefferson lost, libertarians need to get over it.

[Lonestar]

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,

To make all laws which shall be 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, or in any department or officer thereof.

Personally, I would also go with this as well:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because the Constitution does not specify it, doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, just because the Constitution does not specify it, doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

I thought Attorney General Gonzalez already established that if the Constitution does not explicitly say you have a right, then you don't. Even if it does say that this nonexistent right cannot be taken away from you

[Lonestar]

I thought Attorney General Gonzalez already established that if the Constitution does not explicitly say you have a right, then you don't. Even if it does say that this nonexistent right cannot be taken away from you

You mean the jobless bum who did such a great job that...he's a jobless bum?

[CaiusWickersham]

Any refutations. My best shot would be that congress can create laws to create whatever it sees fit provided that the provisions of that law don't violate the constitution. If a UHC bill contained a provision saying that all citizens must install chips in their heads to monitor their thoughts, then that would be unconstitutional for example, but not the creation of UHC in and of itself.

The Court's analysis of Congress' delegated powers goes like this:
1. Can Congress tie its actions back to a delegated power, even if the logic is rather tortured?
2. Is the means appropriate to the ends?

If both are "yes", then the act is constitutional. This was settled pretty early in our country's history.

I thought Attorney General Gonzalez already established that if the Constitution does not explicitly say you have a right, then you don't. Even if it does say that this nonexistent right cannot be taken away from you

I swear, sometimes I thought Gonzalez's arguments were flinging shit on the wall and hoping it'd stick. I still can't figure out what he was thinking with that one.

[Ypoknons]

A constitution doesn't "include everything a government can do" - rather, one of its functions is to set up political structures and delimits powers between branches of government. It is by no means a comprehensive list of what a government can and cannot do, and it seems from the above in the US there's enough both in the constitution itself and case law to support the case for public health care. There are constitutions that are much more restrictive out there, though.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Why are you entertaining the notion that the Constitution is infallable? It was made over two-hundred years ago and the framers even admit to leaving things out for later Americans to figure out because they couldn't agree on what to do about them, for example the issues of slavery & State Vs Federal Rights. I understand that idolising the Founders is good, a good many of them were intelligent and insightful people, but the way people worship them as if they can do no wrong is annoying.

[Samuel]

Why are you entertaining the notion that the Constitution is infallable? It was made over two-hundred years ago and the framers even admit to leaving things out for later Americans to figure out because they couldn't agree on what to do about them, for example the issues of slavery & State Vs Federal Rights. I understand that idolising the Founders is good, a good many of them were intelligent and insightful people, but the way people worship them as if they can do no wrong is annoying.

I think the point of this isn't that the constitution isn't good or bad but what it constrains the government from doing which is a valid question as long as it is considered the basis of American government.

[Patrick Degan]

Why are you entertaining the notion that the Constitution is infallable? It was made over two-hundred years ago and the framers even admit to leaving things out for later Americans to figure out because they couldn't agree on what to do about them, for example the issues of slavery & State Vs Federal Rights. I understand that idolising the Founders is good, a good many of them were intelligent and insightful people, but the way people worship them as if they can do no wrong is annoying.

We are NOT the ones saying the Constitution is infallible. That would be the "original intent" mythologisers who say it stops the government from lifting a finger for the citizenry.

[Ritterin Sophia]

We are NOT the ones saying the Constitution is infallible. That would be the "original intent" mythologisers who say it stops the government from lifting a finger for the citizenry.

Perhaps you had a moment of minor retardation and forgot your reading comprehension skills; I did not say you were asserting that the Constitution is infallible. What I did ask is why you are entertaining the argument that UHC may be unconstitutional when a method of rewriting the Constitution exists. I'm saying who the fuck cares if the Constitution says no? If it is inhibiting the welfare of America's people just change it.

[Thanas]

I thought Attorney General Gonzalez already established that if the Constitution does not explicitly say you have a right, then you don't. Even if it does say that this nonexistent right cannot be taken away from you

You mean the jobless bum who did such a great job that...he's a jobless bum?

Actually, he has found employment.

Yeah, I couldn't believe it either.

[Andrew J.]

Congress has the power "to promote the general welfare". The general interpretation is that the Congress can do almost anything for the good of the nation as long as it isn't forbidden in the Constitution.

What? No it's not. The general welfare clause has been interpreted to apply only to Congress's spending power because of where it is placed in Article I.

That said, the commerce clause power is very broad as many other posters in this thread have mentioned, so there shouldn't be any constitutional barrier to the regulation of insurance companies.

[Patrick Degan]

We are NOT the ones saying the Constitution is infallible. That would be the "original intent" mythologisers who say it stops the government from lifting a finger for the citizenry.

Perhaps you had a moment of minor retardation and forgot your reading comprehension skills; I did not say you were asserting that the Constitution is infallible. What I did ask is why you are entertaining the argument that UHC may be unconstitutional when a method of rewriting the Constitution exists. I'm saying who the fuck cares if the Constitution says no? If it is inhibiting the welfare of America's people just change it.

And who said anybody was entertaining any such notion except those who are determined to manufacture any argument at all to block reform? If you'd been following this thread, you'd have seen it demonstrated that the Constitution doesn't say "no" on acting on healthcare. Perhaps it's your own reading/comprehension skills that need attention?