Health Care Debate Morality Question

[lost87]

and Maxel...I apoligize for my rude post...my young and fiery passions got the best of me. I could have said all of that with a much cooler and more respectful approach.

[Maxel]

lost87-

I think we ought to attempt to find out what the spirit was that lead the founding fathers to draft the Constitution, and attempt to capture the spirit of the Constitution extant at the time of its drafting before we go about talking about how it's a living, breathing document. I am a living, breathing person, but that doesn't mean I will one day be able to live without the necessities of living according to the physical and eternal principles that guide human life. In other words, whatever I do with my body, I must operate according to physical laws (I must eat, sleep, breathe, etc.) to survive. For a democratic republic to survive, it must also operate according to the laws that govern it- those laws are laid down in the Constitution.

That's how I view the matter.

And as for your "young and fiery passions"- I understand. I'm only 21 myself. Those same passions are what lead me to be rude in the first place.

[Moksha]

Perhaps you meant Sadducee????

I would be satisfied with 'Citizen of Athens'. :)

Maxel, thank you.

[Just_A_Guy]

if we the people ban together to support health care reform then aren't we giving them the authority now?

That's actually a really good argument. I think the answer by the terms of the Constitution must be "yes"--if "we the people" bands together sufficiently to pass a Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, you've got the enumerated powers doctrine and the Tenth Amendment to contend with. (Of course, the Supreme Court in its more liberal incarnations has whittled this away through a spat of Commerce Clause cases. I personally think our commerce clause jurisprudence is a load of hooey and ought to be overruled en masse. For some bizarre reason, those in power don't agree with me. But whether you agree with the current application of the Commerce Clause, I think it's well-nigh impossible to make a straight-faced argument that the doctrine is in harmony with the actual text of the Constitution.)

Not only does the above listed section of the Constitution grant congress the powers to do what it is doing now, but the very framework of our nations constitution is meant to be flexible and breathable, not a "dead" document. There was no way for the men of the 18th century to forsee the changes that would sweep the nation with time and knowing such they established a government where checks and balances would be created by the living people, not by a document signed only by themselves.

I think this is highly debatable. The Constitution's drafters were drawing on millennia of government experience, and were arguably drafting a document whose text could stand for the ages. They certainly recognized that times change--hence the incorporation of a formal amendment process--but I suspect they were well aware that a document that means everything ultimately means nothing.

If we as a people were to use the US Constitution as you are suggesting, where if the certain subject isn't specifically listed within, then many of our programs today would not exist...

That's kind of the point. I've seen Justice Stevens make more or less the same point in one of his dissents to (IIRC) a Rhenquist decision that limited the Commerce Clause. It was rather entertaining.

in fact, if we were to live point by point as you suggest it is very likely that our society would still be making its way with horse drawn buggies.

I'd be interested to see this argument expanded.

You are suggesting that we make decision based on the semantics that men chose to use in a document that is a few centuries old.

It's not just "semantics". Most of these guys were either lawyers by profession, or had a significant legal background. They were all too well aware of what words meant, and how they would be interpreted.

The founding fathers wrote that document knowing this and expecting future generations to have the guts and brains to make a difference rather than look for someone to hold their hand as they crossed the streets of life...they are dead now, but gave us the tools to keep our nation living, the TOOLS, not the exact parameters.

Precisely . . . they gave us a procedure to amend the document. What is the point in writing a constitution if it can be unilaterally disregarded by any government entity making a power grab?

[Gatorman]

lost - Thank you for your response. And, it may have been missed in the heated discussion around the other parts. However, I did ask to exclude the General Welfare clause. There is a reason why. The General Welfare clause is an iffy excuse to create any law. Why would our founding fathers, who just fought a war against superior military and government, create a foundation to our government specifically designed to limit the size, power, and scope of the federal governmet, then turn around and write an escape clause. Based on my understanding, the General Welfare clause means that no law can be written which is not applied equally across the board. In other words, if we give a tax break to people who make less than x dollars, that tax break actually must exist for every income bracket. If we have a law that says it is illegal to hire/fire based on race, that means every race must be protected, which would make laws that promote hiring minorities illegal. So, rather than include such a touchy subject in an already touchy subject, I would prefer to look for specific powers, specifically enumerated. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the 10th amendment which says that any power not granted specifically belongs to the states, if the General Welfare clause allows ANY power to exist for the federal government?

So, can you or anyone provide a specific power, specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that gives the Federal Government authority to do this?

And, Maxel, hate to do this, but, I do not believe the Constitution ever mentions Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That actually is from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. " Amazing thing, even our Declaration of Independence recognizes a creator. But, that is an ENTIRELY different argument. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Amazing thing, even our Declaration of Independence recognizes a creator. But, that is an ENTIRELY different argument. :)

But . . . but . . . Jefferson was an atheist! (or a Deist, which is the same thing--right?!)

[Vort]

hmmm...vort...that was a good argument. I still support the reform, but I respect your opinion on the issue...thanks for shedding some light on how my argument could be flawed.

Amazing...someone actually acknowledged a good point that went against her opinion. I am impressed, lost87. Well done!

(PS I'm serious.)

EDIT: Changed personal pronoun, because lost87 is female...Alert! Alert! I'm discriminating!

Edited August 21, 2009 by Vort

[Maxel]

lost87 is cool. She gets the 'Maxel stamp of approval', which I think is worth roughly in U.S. currency.

[Kawazu]

Hi,

Personally, I may support government health care, provided that my donations are solicited on an "opt-in" basis and accompanied by an accounting of to what resources the overall funds have been directed. I would probably be asked to renew my support on a monthly or quarterly basis. That would be fine, perhaps.

Just musing...

Cheers,

Kawazu

[Maxel]

Personally, I may support government health care, provided that my donations are solicited on an "opt-in" basis and accompanied by an accounting of to what resources the overall funds have been directed. I would probably be asked to renew my support on a monthly or quarterly basis. That would be fine, perhaps.

Operated on a state level, this might be fine in certain states. However, I doubt the federal government would be able to be held accountable for the money (where's the stimulus money gone?), will allow the plan to be "opt-in", or even ask your opinion about whether you want to continue paying to support it or not.

I can see the logic behind your position, though. Unfortunately, a plan like that would require upstanding men to be in political power- and recent events have shown the opposite to be true.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Maxel