Re: US Constitution does not give federal government health care powers
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> "Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:h7bsvk$odq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "US Army Veteran" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:FJWdnfHQlNzY9wTX...@giganews.com...
>>> It is not in there. States are given those powers. Obamacare is
>>> unconstitutional.
>>
>> Pure nonsense! In the preamble, is the statement "promote the general
>> welfare." What the hell does that mean?
>>
>> According to you, Medicare, the Veterans Administration and other federal
>> medical programs are unconstitutional. Good thing you're not in power,
>> your
>> views are absurd. Your a disgrace to the Army, the biggest federal
>> program
>> of all.
>>
> General Welfare does not include the complete government control of
General welfare in the constitution is a myth.... it appears twice and
neither grants anything in the way of rights to the people.
The first time it appears is *in the preamble* and it suggests that the
government "promote" the general welfare of the people.
Promote does *NOT* equal "provide" so the preamble is suggesting that
the government passively do thing to *allow* for the people to do for
themselves.
Similar to "God helps those who help themselves" but in secular terms.
The government is not directed to provide a house and land, but to
promote home ownership by setting up a deed/land office to allow the
record keeping of ownership, *NOT* to hand out houses to people.
Then in article 1 sect 8 when it discusses welfare, it says "welfare of
the United States" and everywhere the constitution says *United States*
it is referring to the Federal government. When it says "the people" it
means *the people* and the constitution doesn't mix the two.
Congress "is" supposed to "provide" for the Federal government(United
States), that is their job. NOWHERE in the constitution does it say that
congress is to *provide* welfare for the people.
*NO WHERE AT ALL DOES IT ALLOW FOR WELFARE OR REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH*
> health care.
> Many people think they are better than the government at providing for
> their health care and that government run health care will make health
> care worse.
--
Peter Franks
The relevant clause, in which any power, if delegated, is delegated is:
"general Welfare of the United States"
The clause CAN NOT be parsed. There is NO PROVISION for the general
Welfare of the citizens. Such authority, if it exists, exists at the
state level or below.
Universal Health Care, Obamacare, whatever you choose to call it is
patently unconstitutional and repugnant to the enlightened.
Poetic Justice
Yes, the United States as in the "Government of the United States" not
as in "the people"
> The clause CAN NOT be parsed. There is NO PROVISION for the general
> Welfare of the citizens. Such authority, if it exists, exists at the
> state level or below.
>
> Universal Health Care, Obamacare, whatever you choose to call it is
> patently unconstitutional and repugnant to the enlightened.
But *NOT* repugnant to Constitutional professors that become President
and then will sign those unconstitutional bills into law.
--
Josh
>
> "general Welfare of the United States"
>
> The clause CAN NOT be parsed. There is NO PROVISION for the general
> Welfare of the citizens. Such authority, if it exists, exists at the
> state level or below.
The general welfare of the people is authorized as Necessary and Proper
to the general welfare of the United States.
Josh Rosenbluth
Michael Coburn
People who make asinine claims such as yours are not called "enlightened".
They are usually referred to as "rightarded".
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Poetic Justice
Your way of reading it, leaves no limit on the United States Government.
Therefore all *Limitations* enumerated and not enumerated could also be
designated "necessary and proper" which means there is NO limit to the
Federal governments power.
That's NOT how the Document was written and it doesn't follow the spirit
of the law. You have no case that the Constitution is open ended and
allows the Federal government to do "anything" it wants by simply
deeming it "Necessary and Proper to the general welfare of the United
States."
If that were true....
*THEN BUSH WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO WATER-BOARD TERRORISTS*
Since there was no law specifically calling waterboarding torture.
Do you see the problem with "Necessary and Proper to the general welfare
of the United States."
It would allow a Hitler to warp the constitution to mean that Genocide
of Jews would be acceptable if the people or congress decided it was OK,
when in reality, the Constitution can't do that because of inalienable
rights that Government doesn't give.
So you really can't do anything necessary.
Your definition of the quoted sentence has to be wrong, if not then the
constitution and the idea it is based on is worthless.
--
Josh
> On 12/18/2009 6:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> "general Welfare of the United States"
>>>
>>> The clause CAN NOT be parsed. There is NO PROVISION for the general
>>> Welfare of the citizens. Such authority, if it exists, exists at the
>>> state level or below.
>> The general welfare of the people is authorized as Necessary and Proper
>> to the general welfare of the United States.
>
> Your way of reading it, leaves no limit on the United States Government.
No, the Necessary and Proper law must be in support of an enumerated
power - it can't stand on its own, and that sets a limit.
> Therefore all *Limitations* enumerated and not enumerated could also be
> designated "necessary and proper" which means there is NO limit to the
> Federal governments power.
>
> That's NOT how the Document was written and it doesn't follow the spirit
> of the law. You have no case that the Constitution is open ended and
> allows the Federal government to do "anything" it wants by simply
> deeming it "Necessary and Proper to the general welfare of the United
> States."
>
> If that were true....
>
> *THEN BUSH WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO WATER-BOARD TERRORISTS*
>
> Since there was no law specifically calling waterboarding torture.
What does torture have to do with the scope of the Necessary and Proper
clause, and the general welfare of the United States?
> Do you see the problem with "Necessary and Proper to the general welfare
> of the United States."
>
>
> It would allow a Hitler to warp the constitution to mean that Genocide
> of Jews would be acceptable if the people or congress decided it was OK,
> when in reality, the Constitution can't do that because of inalienable
> rights that Government doesn't give.
Genocide violates the 14th Amendment.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
They aren't enlightened so it comes as no surprise.
Peter Franks
No, not for the enlightened.
Peter Franks
> Poetic Justice wrote:
>> On 12/18/2009 6:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>> "general Welfare of the United States"
>>>>
>>>> The clause CAN NOT be parsed. There is NO PROVISION for the general
>>>> Welfare of the citizens. Such authority, if it exists, exists at the
>>>> state level or below.
>>> The general welfare of the people is authorized as Necessary and Proper
>>> to the general welfare of the United States.
>>
>> Your way of reading it, leaves no limit on the United States Government.
>
> No, the Necessary and Proper law must be in support of an enumerated
> power - it can't stand on its own, and that sets a limit.
The same applies to general Welfare.
Therefore, neither delegate authority and UHC is doubly unconstitutional.
Peter Franks
Call that by the unenlightened.
I'm sorry that you disagree with the proper purposes of government.
Name calling only serves to make you look like a fool. If you want to
engage in a rational discussion, I hope that you first understand the
fundamentals of fair communication.
Peter Franks
>> People who make asinine claims such as yours are not called
>> "enlightened".
>> They are usually referred to as "rightarded".
>
> Call that by the unenlightened.
Should read: "Called that..."
Josh
How about offering some reasoning rather than a conclusion?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
The "Power To lay and collect Taxes, [to] provide for the general
Welfare of the United States" is enumerated. Providing for the general
welfare of the people is Necessary and Proper in support of that
enumerated power.
Josh Rosenbluth
Poetic Justice
> Poetic Justice wrote:
>> On 12/18/2009 6:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>> "general Welfare of the United States"
>>>>
>>>> The clause CAN NOT be parsed. There is NO PROVISION for the general
>>>> Welfare of the citizens. Such authority, if it exists, exists at the
>>>> state level or below.
>>> The general welfare of the people is authorized as Necessary and Proper
>>> to the general welfare of the United States.
>>
>> Your way of reading it, leaves no limit on the United States Government.
>
> No, the Necessary and Proper law must be in support of an enumerated
> power - it can't stand on its own, and that sets a limit.
>
There is no enumerated power to allow congress to give money to "the
people" There is no enumerated power that tells the United States
Government to provide health care to "the people"
How does congress do this legally?
>> Therefore all *Limitations* enumerated and not enumerated could also be
>> designated "necessary and proper" which means there is NO limit to the
>> Federal governments power.
>>
>> That's NOT how the Document was written and it doesn't follow the spirit
>> of the law. You have no case that the Constitution is open ended and
>> allows the Federal government to do "anything" it wants by simply
>> deeming it "Necessary and Proper to the general welfare of the United
>> States."
>>
>> If that were true....
>>
>> *THEN BUSH WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO WATER-BOARD TERRORISTS*
>>
>> Since there was no law specifically calling waterboarding torture.
>
> What does torture have to do with the scope of the Necessary and Proper
> clause, and the general welfare of the United States?
>
>> Do you see the problem with "Necessary and Proper to the general welfare
>> of the United States."
>>
>>
>> It would allow a Hitler to warp the constitution to mean that Genocide
>> of Jews would be acceptable if the people or congress decided it was OK,
>> when in reality, the Constitution can't do that because of inalienable
>> rights that Government doesn't give.
>
> Genocide violates the 14th Amendment.
>
Won't matter, if it is deemed for the good of the united states.
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
Josh
> On 12/18/2009 8:04 PM, Josh wrote:
>> Poetic Justice wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2009 6:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>> "general Welfare of the United States"
>>>>>
>>>>> The clause CAN NOT be parsed. There is NO PROVISION for the general
>>>>> Welfare of the citizens. Such authority, if it exists, exists at the
>>>>> state level or below.
>>>> The general welfare of the people is authorized as Necessary and Proper
>>>> to the general welfare of the United States.
>>> Your way of reading it, leaves no limit on the United States Government.
>> No, the Necessary and Proper law must be in support of an enumerated
>> power - it can't stand on its own, and that sets a limit.
>>
>
> There is no enumerated power to allow congress to give money to "the
> people" There is no enumerated power that tells the United States
> Government to provide health care to "the people"
>
> How does congress do this legally?
It is Necessary and Proper to do both in order to support the enumerated
"Power To lay and collect Taxes, [to] provide for the general Welfare of
the United States."
>>> Do you see the problem with "Necessary and Proper to the general welfare
>>> of the United States."
>>>
>>>
>>> It would allow a Hitler to warp the constitution to mean that Genocide
>>> of Jews would be acceptable if the people or congress decided it was OK,
>>> when in reality, the Constitution can't do that because of inalienable
>>> rights that Government doesn't give.
>> Genocide violates the 14th Amendment.
>>
>
> Won't matter, if it is deemed for the good of the united states.
No. Not only must a federal law be authorized in the Constitution, it
must not be contravened by the limits on government (mostly contained in
the Amendments). If it's good for the United States but violates the
14th, the law is invalid.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Sorry, your talking in circles here. The power to tax is dependent on
powers delegated elsewhere, and that indirect power [to tax] may only be
used if it provides for the general Welfare of the United States.
So, here's a simpler way to look at it:
Ignore the following clauses (they aren't germane to the discussion
regarding the source of the power since they are all dependencies):
- the power to tax
- providing for the general Welfare
- necessary and proper
So, where does the authority to establish a federal UHC program come from?
Josh
Sorry, the taxing power, and specifically to provide for the general
welfare of the United States, is an independent, enumerated power.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Sure.
Legal reasoning given elsewhere in this thread, reiterated here:
General welfare, necessary and proper, and taxing power are all
subordinate clauses to authority delegated elsewhere.
So, for the purposes of discussing the authorizing power, none are
sufficient to be the source of /any/ legislation, let alone UHC.
Enlightened reasoning, iterated here:
The proper form and organization of government is one of order,
hierarchy, and responsibility.
- People are responsible for themselves.
- Local government are to ensure that people aren't impeded (by
others) from exercising/enjoying their responsibilities.
- Intermediate governments are to ensure that local governments aren't
impeded.
- High-level government are to ensure that intermediate governments
aren't impeded.
Having a high-level government provide for individual needs is totally
inappropriate, and contrary to the proper design of government.
This is obviously the original intent that can be found in even a cursor
reading of the Constitution. But, even if it weren't, that is still the
proper form and organization of government.
Similarly, even if a Constitutional amendment were passed that
authorized Congress to enact UHC, it would be repugnant to the proper
design and order of government.
There is an order in all things. And the more that we break away from
that order, the more that we compromise our systems of government. If
left uncorrected, the government will fail.
Peter Franks
No, it is not.
Let's digest:
You agree that general Welfare is a dependent, right? Presuming yes,
let's look at the clause:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States;..."
Summarizing: congress has power to tax provided it is for the general
welfare. Therefore, tax is dependent on general welfare, and since
general welfare is dependent on other powers, the logical implication is
clear: tax is dependent on powers delegated elsewhere.
dracc...@gmail.com
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > US Army Veteran wrote:
> >>news:h7bsvk$odq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> "US Army Veteran" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote in message
Peter the People Are the United States, without the People you have no
United States.
dracc...@gmail.com
Your judgement on what is and is not constitutional has always proven
rather flawed as your own very limited intellect.
Josh
No, "general welfare" (used in Article 1) is not dependent on other powers.
Josh Rosenbluth
Beam Me Up Scotty
In the 2nd amendment it says "The right of the people"
The people writing the constitution knew the difference between the
"United States" and "the people" and they used the correct terms when
they carefully wrote it.
The United States is the States in the Union and the governance there
of. It is NOT "the people"
Because when they meant the people they say the people.
--
Poetic Justice
And more obvious is that it doesn't say "general Welfare of *the_people*
;...""
It specifically is the Federal government as it discusses Congress'
power to tax and spend on and maintain the federal government.
Another example is:
"To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;"
Here again is an example of "United States" meaning the government of
the United States since "the people" don't have or produce the coin of
the United States. Coining money was a power given to Congress and not
"the people"
--
Poetic Justice
The United States is NOT the people. In the constitution the United
States is the United States Government. The States individually are
the "State" and the people are "the people".
--
Jerry Okamura
"Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hgh4vd$8te$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
that they cannot possible heep? By taking away more of our freedoms?
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hgh6...@news2.newsguy.com...
Jerry Okamura
Josh
Those are policy considerations (resolved by majority vote of your
representatives), not Constitutional considerations.
Josh Rosenbluth
Poetic Justice
It is dependent on who.... "welfare of the United States" so
congress is having it's powers delegated by this section 8.
It isn't delegating that congress have power to spend tax money on "the
people"
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
The United States is the Government NOT the people.
When they say "the people" they mean the people, when they say United
States they don't mean teh people or they would have just said "the people"
--
Josh
> congress is having it's powers delegated by this section 8.
>
> It isn't delegating that congress have power to spend tax money on "the
> people"
"Congress shall have Power [...] To make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"
One of the foregoing powers: tax to provide for the general welfare of
the United States (a completely independent power).
Thus, Congress is authorized to tax to provide for the general welfare
of the people because that dependent power is necessary and proper for
carrying out the independent power of taxing to provide for the general
welfare of the United States.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
After more study, I'll slightly revise my previous statements:
The taxing power is limited by the general Welfare clause, and the
general welfare clause is dependent on the taxing power. Therefore,
general welfare of the United States can only be provided through taxation.
Ignoring the fact that UHC isn't general welfare of the United States,
is UHC provided through tax?
Peter Franks
Is UHC a tax?
Peter Franks
Actually, it is a constitutional consideration:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States..."
"pay the Debts", not 'create the debts".
So, on a tangent, does that clause authorize government to pay for my
personal debts?
Josh
Agreed.
> Ignoring the fact that UHC isn't general welfare of the United States,
Re-iterating, it need not be thanks to the Necessary and Proper clause.
> is UHC provided through tax?
There is no UHC. There is a bill passed by the House, and another one
that looks like it will pass the Senate. Both have taxes in them, but
both have other provisions as well. Those provisions are either
directly authorized by the Commerce Clause, or indirectly through the
Necessary and Proper clause as applied to the Commerce Clause.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
It does not preclude spending that increases the debt, so long as the
spending is necessary and proper to provide for the common defense or
general welfare of the United States.
> So, on a tangent, does that clause authorize government to pay for my
> personal debts?
Yes, because that can be considered necessary and proper for providing
for the general welfare of the United States.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
The taxes aren't being used for UHC. Let's just focus on that for a moment.
UHC can only be provided for through taxation. N&P only empowers, it
doesn't circumvent.
Regulation of commerce doesn't not authorize compulsion to purchase.
So, where's the basis?
Josh
The mandate to buy insurance is necessary and proper to the overall
regulation of the health insurance industry authorized by the Commerce
Clause, and in particular to the regulation that requires insurance
companies to offer reasonably-priced insurance to those with preexisting
conditions.
Alternatively, the bill says that if you don't buy insurance you will be
taxed, in which case we are back to the Taxing power.
Josh Rosenbluth
John Galt
Like all matters of this sort, the success of a challenge to an
individual mandate will largely rest on how the challenge is framed.
The challenge that will be argued in front of the SCOTUS will *probably*
be that the US has never before mandated that its citizens must, for no
other reason that they are living in the US, purchase a commercial
product from a private corporation; and that the Constitution does not
authorize the government to do so.
The government response might be framed as you have above.
Let the games begin. However, I think it a difficult argument if the
government takes the position you have outlined. I can hear Scalia in
the background saying "So.......the government is going to provide for
my general welfare by ordering me to buy a product from Aetna and ining
me or tossing me in jail if I don't?"
"Seems like Aetna's providing for my general welfare, not the government."
(And, don't negate the second half of that hypothetical question. If the
government has no recourse should a citizen NOT purchase insurance, the
entire "reform" falls apart.)
This could be yet another 5-4 decision, but I don't see this flying by
the conservative bloc nor Kennedy; nor Sotomayor, for that matter, who
is on record as having a very strong respect for the 10th Amendment. If
this comes down to "does the Commerce Clause trump the 10th Amendment"
(or any other of the first 10) I'm not at all sure she'd vote with the
libs.
JG
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
The government will argue it is a tax, not a fine.
> "Seems like Aetna's providing for my general welfare, not the government."
>
> (And, don't negate the second half of that hypothetical question. If the
> government has no recourse should a citizen NOT purchase insurance, the
> entire "reform" falls apart.)
Which is why the Commerce Clause, not the Taxing Power, is the stronger
argument. That is, the individual mandate is necessary and proper to
the overall regulation of the insurance industry, the latter being
authorized by the Commerce Clause.
> This could be yet another 5-4 decision, but I don't see this flying by
> the conservative bloc nor Kennedy; nor Sotomayor, for that matter, who
> is on record as having a very strong respect for the 10th Amendment. If
> this comes down to "does the Commerce Clause trump the 10th Amendment"
> (or any other of the first 10) I'm not at all sure she'd vote with the
> libs.
Scalia's concurrence in Raich provides the road map for 6 or more votes
to uphold the law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
Josh Rosenbluth
Jerry Okamura
Peter Franks
The commerce clause can't be construed as mandating that the citizens
purchase a particular (NON COMMERCE) item.
> Alternatively, the bill says that if you don't buy insurance you will be
> taxed, in which case we are back to the Taxing power.
The pretext is flawed, you can't mandate purchase and then 'fine'
through a tax to justify it. It must either be tax, or it isn't
constitutional.
Then there's the sticking point the Nelson special-case Medicare vomitus
of the proposed bill.
"...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States..."
Hardly uniform, hardly constitutional.
Peter Franks
How about for my personal protection?
Josh
>
> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:hgj7al$j2p$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>
>>> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hgh4vd$8te$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "general Welfare of the United States"
>>>>>
>>>>> The clause CAN NOT be parsed. There is NO PROVISION for the
>>>>> general Welfare of the citizens. Such authority, if it exists,
>>>>> exists at the state level or below.
>>>>
>>>> The general welfare of the people is authorized as Necessary and
>>>> Proper to the general welfare of the United States.
>>>>
>>> By adding to the National debt? By making yet another government
>>> promise that they cannot possible heep? By taking away more of our
>>> freedoms?
>>
>> Those are policy considerations (resolved by majority vote of your
>> representatives), not Constitutional considerations.
>>
> Relevance?
The thread (look at the title, and the post you replied to) was about
whether the Constitution authorizes federal involvement in health care,
not whether it is a good idea.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
It's not the Commerce Clause. It's the Necessary and Proper clause (the
mandate), applied to the Commerce Clause (requiring insurance companies
to drop preexisting condition barriers).
>> Alternatively, the bill says that if you don't buy insurance you will
>> be taxed, in which case we are back to the Taxing power.
>
> The pretext is flawed, you can't mandate purchase and then 'fine'
> through a tax to justify it. It must either be tax, or it isn't
> constitutional.
That's true only if the tax/fine is strictly a punishment, and not an
independent revenue raiser. Case law clearly permits revenue raisers
that also fine. I agree it is a close call on this issue, but not on
the Commerce Clause on above.
> Then there's the sticking point the Nelson special-case Medicare vomitus
> of the proposed bill.
>
> "...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the
> United States..."
>
> Hardly uniform, hardly constitutional.
Only the taxes need be uniform, not the spending.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
Is the federal government authorized to pay for your personal
protection? Yes.
Josh Rosenbluth
maxw...@my-deja.com
>
> So, where does the authority to establish a federal UHC program come from?
Try to make your same argument against public education.
The US govt. has been providing federal funds for public education
for years. A state university with the name "State", "A&M" or
"Tech" in its name was likely chartered as a "Land grant"
school where states received grants from the federal govt. to
create those schools. This is nothing new, this happened over
a 135 years ago led by republicans. Do you think the nation
is worse off due to these schools? or for any of the subsequent
funding that public education has received over the years?
I think this does fall into promoting the general welfare and
more good than bad came of it.
Poetic Justice
Where in the constitution is that? The government is given the power
to *"pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence"* I see no
reference to personal safety.
--
Poetic Justice
Yes, the constitution spells out where the congress is allowed to spend
the taxes.... I agree and totally support you in any attempt to
constrain the congress from spending on things *NOT* listed in the
constitution.
One place the congress is NEVER authorized to give money is to "the people"
They define the United States as the government, if they had wanted the
Congress to give money to "the people" they would have used the term
"the people" but they didn't.
> Thus, Congress is authorized to tax to provide for the general welfare
> of the people...
Where does it say *provide for the general welfare of the people*
No where in the constitution is this phrase used. You made it up. It is
also not inferred in the constitution.
> ...because that dependent power is necessary and proper for
> carrying out the independent power of taxing to provide for the general
> welfare of the United States.
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Obama makes Enron look fiscally responsible.
Josh
Personal safety is necessary and proper for the general welfare of the
United States.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
Why do you keep ignoring the Necessary and Proper clause?
Josh Rosenbluth
Poetic Justice
> Necessary and Proper
"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. "
It allows for *no new* power, it just explains the fact that congress is
supposed to take care of what is already enumerated.
Actually it forces Congress to make the laws and doesn't allow for
congress to allow for Bureaucrats to make laws.... it's saying all laws
must go through congress, so it is a limit on the United States. The
laws being made by the "Environmental Protection Agency" that do not go
through Congress are unconstitutional, because they are "To *make_all*
Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
*foregoing_Powers* "
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Ignorance or liar: ignorance is easily cured(just seek the truth), liar
is a character flaw and is very difficult to repair.
- Poetic Justice -
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
> On 12/20/2009 3:17 PM, Josh wrote:
>
> > Necessary and Proper
>
> "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. "
>
> It allows for *no new* power, it just explains the fact that congress is
> supposed to take care of what is already enumerated.
Which means Congress can pass *any* law which is necessary and proper
to support an enumerated power. Providing for the people (any law) is
necessary and proper for providing for the general welfare of the
United States (an enumerated power).
Josh Rosenbluth
Beam Me Up Scotty
"Necessary and proper" does not allow for *unlimited creation of laws*
,if it did the rest of the constitution would be superfluous.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny
individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
- Ayn Rand -
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
"Necessary and proper" does not allow for *unlimited creation of laws*
,if it did the rest of the constitution would be superfluous.
You can't have any one constitutional power that eradicates all others.
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
Which is to say that your "Necessary and Proper, right" can not take
supremacy over my rights.
--
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't
pick your friends nose.
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Life is like a "Waring Blender" you can toss a little bullshit in with
the ice cream, and as long as you weren't watching, it all tastes like
milkshake.
Beam Me Up Scotty
The general welfare of the *United States* not "the people" That is the
government of the United States. The congress has no authority to give
taxes to the people.
Poetic Justice
> wrote:
>> On 12/20/2009 3:17 PM, Josh wrote:
>>
>>> Necessary and Proper
>>
>> "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. "
>>
>> It allows for *no new* power, it just explains the fact that congress is
>> supposed to take care of what is already enumerated.
>
> Which means Congress can pass *any* law which is necessary and proper
> to support an enumerated power. Providing for the people (any law) is
There is no such thing as "providing for the people" in teh constitution.
> necessary and proper for providing for the general welfare of the
> United States (an enumerated power).
>
The United States, is a government.
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
Poetic Justice
> wrote:
>> On 12/20/2009 3:17 PM, Josh wrote:
>>
>>> Necessary and Proper
>>
>> "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. "
>>
>> It allows for *no new* power, it just explains the fact that congress is
>> supposed to take care of what is already enumerated.
>
> Which means Congress can pass *any* law which is necessary and proper
> to support an enumerated power. Providing for the people (any law) is
There is no such thing as "providing for the people" in teh constitution.
> necessary and proper for providing for the general welfare of the
> United States (an enumerated power).
>
The United States, is a government.
And yes Congress is authorized to provide for the United States
Government, that is after all - their job.
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
Poetic Justice
> wrote:
>> On 12/20/2009 3:17 PM, Josh wrote:
>>
>>> Necessary and Proper
>>
>> "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. "
>>
>> It allows for *no new* power, it just explains the fact that congress is
>> supposed to take care of what is already enumerated.
>
> Which means Congress can pass *any* law which is necessary and proper
So you think you can pass a law on the Press and Nationalize it? You can
pass a law to make speedy trials illegal? Because they are necessary and
proper....
> to support an enumerated power. Providing for the people (any law) is
> necessary and proper for providing for the general welfare of the
> United States (an enumerated power).
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
Peter Franks
N&P is not an expansive power, but merely an empowering power.
It doesn't change "United States" to 'the people'; rather it states that
the power can be exectuted.
Peter Franks
Any law within the bounds of the delegated authority.
Congress can pass any law to provide for the general welfare of the
/United States/ -- the entity, considered as a WHOLE.
It CANNOT pass any law that contains a greater specificity than "United
States", doing so violates the original delegation of power, Amendment
X, and the proper form and organization of government.
Jerry Okamura
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:hgln4e$mn7$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
2nd Amendment.
Jerry Okamura
heatlhcare?
Peter Franks
Although that is included in the proposed UHC legislation, it has
nothing to do with the socialist UHC program, and isn't germane to this
discussion.
>>> Alternatively, the bill says that if you don't buy insurance you will
>>> be taxed, in which case we are back to the Taxing power.
>>
>> The pretext is flawed, you can't mandate purchase and then 'fine'
>> through a tax to justify it. It must either be tax, or it isn't
>> constitutional.
>
> That's true only if the tax/fine is strictly a punishment, and not an
> independent revenue raiser. Case law clearly permits revenue raisers
> that also fine. I agree it is a close call on this issue, but not on
> the Commerce Clause on above.
>
>> Then there's the sticking point the Nelson special-case Medicare
>> vomitus of the proposed bill.
>>
>> "...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
>> the United States..."
>>
>> Hardly uniform, hardly constitutional.
>
> Only the taxes need be uniform, not the spending.
That's what I'm talking about. Nebraska is effectively not taxed. That
is not uniform.
Peter Franks
The ends don't justify the means.
Where is the authority?
I'll answer for you: there is none.
Peter Franks
So then what is the purpose of any other form of government other than
national/central? Amendment X is irrelevant under your broad
interpretation.
You have just described a central totalitarian government. Is that what
the founders wanted?
Peter Franks
Again, you have distilled the constitution down to:
Article I
Congress shall have power.
Peter Franks
That is me providing my own personal protection.
Poetic Justice
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 11:16 am, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2009 3:17 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Necessary and Proper
>>> "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. "
>>>
>>> It allows for *no new* power, it just explains the fact that congress is
>>> supposed to take care of what is already enumerated.
>>
>> Which means Congress can pass *any* law which is necessary and proper
>> to support an enumerated power. Providing for the people (any law) is
>> necessary and proper for providing for the general welfare of the
>> United States (an enumerated power).
>
> Any law within the bounds of the delegated authority.
>
> Congress can pass any law to provide for the general welfare of the
> /United States/ -- the entity, considered as a WHOLE.
They called that "the Several States" they called the Federal
Government "United States".
> It CANNOT pass any law that contains a greater specificity than "United
> States", doing so violates the original delegation of power, Amendment
> X, and the proper form and organization of government.
The United States is NOT the people. Nor is it the whole Nation since
the Nation is referred to as the "Several States".
--
Poetic Justice
Is he saying that anything he puts in front of "is necessary and proper
for the general welfare of the United States." is Constitutional?
That's what I get from him..........?
My personal health is necessary and proper for the general welfare of
the United States. And that makes health care constitutional?
My personal Nutrition is necessary and proper for the general welfare of
the United States. And that makes National food banks constitutional?
My personal warmth is necessary and proper for the general welfare of
the United States. And that makes Heating oil and clothing supplied by
the U.S. Government also constitutional?
Under this clause he thinks the government can force us all to buy those
little Mao suits from the Federal Government?
These socialists are crazy.... Government can't force me to buy
anything. I went through this with an insurance company that tried to
tell me I had to buy specific insurance, I replied "Who writes the
check" and then said there will be no more checks from me for that. I
say the same thing to government.... F*CK you I will write no checks for
what government suggests/demands I buy.... there will be two sides,
those that pay and those that receive it free. Since I won't pay, I
guess that means I'll get it free.
To start with why would people buy a plan that costs $4,000 a years when
they can pay a fine of $750 and get health care or buy none and wait
till they are sick and then get health care, so I could skip getting
health care for 5 years and save 20,000 in premiums and then when I get
sick I get health care and run up a $100,000 to $250,000 in bills and
still have the $20,000 I saved by not buying in until I was already sick.
This is the straw that broke the camels back, Obama just bankrupted America.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Democrats/socialists impose their rules on a capitalist economy and then
complain about the way capitalism works with socialist-prescribed rules!!
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 11:16 am, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/20/2009 3:17 PM, Josh wrote:
>
> >>> Necessary and Proper
> >> "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. "
>
> >> It allows for *no new* power, it just explains the fact that congress is
> >> supposed to take care of what is already enumerated.
>
> > Which means Congress can pass *any* law which is necessary and proper
> > to support an enumerated power. Providing for the people (any law) is
> > necessary and proper for providing for the general welfare of the
> > United States (an enumerated power).
>
> Any law within the bounds of the delegated authority.
... and any law, even if that law itself is not within the bounds of
the delegated authority, which is necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the delegated authority
> Congress can pass any law to provide for the general welfare of the
> /United States/ -- the entity, considered as a WHOLE.
... and any law, even if that law itself does not proivde for the
general welfare of the United States as an entity, which is necessary
and proper for carrying into execution providing for the general
welfare of the United States as an entity.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
> On 12/21/2009 11:39 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 11:16 am, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/20/2009 3:17 PM, Josh wrote:
>
> >>> Necessary and Proper
>
> >> "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. "
>
> >> It allows for *no new* power, it just explains the fact that congress is
> >> supposed to take care of what is already enumerated.
>
> > Which means Congress can pass *any* law which is necessary and proper
>
> So you think you can pass a law on the Press and Nationalize it? You can
> pass a law to make speedy trials illegal? Because they are necessary and
> proper....
Slight revision - any law which is not contravened by another part of
the Constitution (in your examples, the First and Sixth Amendments).
Which other part of the Constittuion contravenes spending for the
general welfare of the people?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
dog.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/2009 11:39 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 11:16 am, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/20/2009 3:17 PM, Josh wrote:
>
> >>> Necessary and Proper
>
> >> "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. "
>
> >> It allows for *no new* power, it just explains the fact that congress is
> >> supposed to take care of what is already enumerated.
>
> > Which means Congress can pass *any* law which is necessary and proper
> > to support an enumerated power. Providing for the people (any law) is
> > necessary and proper for providing for the general welfare of the
> > United States (an enumerated power).
>
> The general welfare of the *United States* not "the people" That is the
> government of the United States. The congress has no authority to give
> taxes to the people.
It does because that is necessary and proper to the general welfare of
the United States.
> "Necessary and proper" does not allow for *unlimited creation of laws*
> ,if it did the rest of the constitution would be superfluous.
I didn't say it was unlimited. The laws permitted under the Necessary
and Proper clause are constrained to support an enumerated power.
> "Amendment IX
>
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
>
> Which is to say that your "Necessary and Proper, right" can not take
> supremacy over my rights.
I agree. What right does the Necessary and Proper clause deny or
disparage?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
> "Josh" <u...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hgln5b$mgo$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> > Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> >>news:hgj7al$j2p$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
> >>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> >>>>news:hgh4vd$8te$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
> >>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "general Welfare of the United States"
>
> >>>>>> The clause CAN NOT be parsed. There is NO PROVISION for the general
> >>>>>> Welfare of the citizens. Such authority, if it exists, exists at the
> >>>>>> state level or below.
>
> >>>>> The general welfare of the people is authorized as Necessary and
> >>>>> Proper to the general welfare of the United States.
>
> >>>> By adding to the National debt? By making yet another government
> >>>> promise that they cannot possible heep? By taking away more of our
> >>>> freedoms?
>
> >>> Those are policy considerations (resolved by majority vote of your
> >>> representatives), not Constitutional considerations.
>
> >> Relevance?
>
> > The thread (look at the title, and the post you replied to) was about
> > whether the Constitution authorizes federal involvement in health care,
> > not whether it is a good idea.
>
> So, in your opinion, does the Constitution allow for federal involvement in
> heatlhcare?
For what is in the House and Senate bills, yes.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh wrote:
> > Peter Franks wrote:
> >> Josh wrote:
> >>> Peter Franks wrote:
> >>>> Josh wrote:
> >>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
I disagree. For example, the federal government is prohibited from
requiring that you be personally protected. The limit of its power is
paying for it.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
> On 12/21/2009 2:35 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>
>
> Is he saying that anything he puts in front of "is necessary and proper
> for the general welfare of the United States." is Constitutional?
>
> That's what I get from him..........?
>
> My personal health is necessary and proper for the general welfare of
> the United States. And that makes health care constitutional?
It makes spending on health care constitutional. The delegated power
is to spend on the general welfare of the United States.
> My personal Nutrition is necessary and proper for the general welfare of
> the United States. And that makes National food banks constitutional?
Yes.
> My personal warmth is necessary and proper for the general welfare of
> the United States. And that makes Heating oil and clothing supplied by
> the U.S. Government also constitutional?
Yes.
> Under this clause he thinks the government can force us all to buy those
> little Mao suits from the Federal Government?
No. That would not be spending, and thus is not tied to a delegated
power, and also violates the First Amendment (Free Speech). But, the
insurance mandate is constitutional because it is tied to the Commerce
Clause power and does not implicate Free Speech.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
So, as I've said several times before, your interpretation implies that
the founders were buffoons, never using the words they meant.
Instead of 'the people', they wrote 'United States'.
Let me ask this, what words, terms, whatever would they have used had
the idiots actually meant to limit the power to the welfare of the
United States as an entity?
Peter Franks
Hardly. My general welfare is dependent on protection. Right?
After all, these idiots in DC are requiring that I'm healthy. Dead is
worse than sick.
Poetic Justice
You have yet to point out a clause that says "give money to the people"
Yet you keep saying there is a power given to congress to give tax money
to the people.
>> "Amendment IX
>>
>> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
>>
>> Which is to say that your "Necessary and Proper, right" can not take
>> supremacy over my rights.
>
> I agree. What right does the Necessary and Proper clause deny or
> disparage?
My right to keep what I earn. or Your right to redistribute my money.
When you take my money and give it to another person to redistribute it.
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
Poetic Justice
Bull.... The commerce clause doesn't cove me not buying something so you
can't force me to buy something because that's NOT commerce
If I Buy NOTHING what commerce has taken place for the government to
regulate.
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
Poetic Justice
So the Government could also force you to buy a gun?
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
Peter Franks
X
Peter Franks
Pretty much.
Peter Franks
> On Dec 21, 4:33 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> wrote:
>> On 12/21/2009 2:35 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is he saying that anything he puts in front of "is necessary and proper
>> for the general welfare of the United States." is Constitutional?
>>
>> That's what I get from him..........?
>>
>> My personal health is necessary and proper for the general welfare of
>> the United States. And that makes health care constitutional?
>
> It makes spending on health care constitutional. The delegated power
> is to spend on the general welfare of the United States.
What does "United States" mean?
Be careful to frame your response correctly, taking into account other
uses of the phrase.
Josh
They also wrote that Congress can make all laws necessary and proper to
that end.
> Let me ask this, what words, terms, whatever would they have used had
> the idiots actually meant to limit the power to the welfare of the
> United States as an entity?
They would have had to delete the Necessary and Proper clause.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
Yes, but that has no relevance to my distinction about requiring that
protection versus paying for it.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
OK. You don't understand the plain English of the Necessary and Proper
clause.
>>> "Amendment IX
>>>
>>> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>>> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
>>>
>>> Which is to say that your "Necessary and Proper, right" can not take
>>> supremacy over my rights.
>> I agree. What right does the Necessary and Proper clause deny or
>> disparage?
>
> My right to keep what I earn. or Your right to redistribute my money.
>
> When you take my money and give it to another person to redistribute it.
If that were a right, then taxing you to raise an army would also
violate the Ninth Amendment.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
Once again, the Necessary and Proper clause - the mandate is necessary
and proper to the execution of regulation interstate commerce.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
No. That is not necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate
commerce.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
In the Constitution, sometimes it means the country, sometimes it means
the federal government. Either way is OK by me because spending on
personal health is necessary and proper for either.
Josh Rosenbluth
Poetic Justice
> Josh wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Josh wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>> Josh wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>>>> Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The taxing power is limited by the general Welfare clause, and
>>>>>>> the general welfare clause is dependent on the taxing power.
>>>>>>> Therefore, general welfare of the United States can only be
>>>>>>> provided through taxation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ignoring the fact that UHC isn't general welfare of the United
>>>>>>> States,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re-iterating, it need not be thanks to the Necessary and Proper
>>>>>> clause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is UHC provided through tax?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no UHC. There is a bill passed by the House, and another
>>>>>> one that looks like it will pass the Senate. Both have taxes in
>>>>>> them, but both have other provisions as well. Those provisions
>>>>>> are either directly authorized by the Commerce Clause, or
>>>>>> indirectly through the Necessary and Proper clause as applied to
>>>>>> the Commerce Clause.
>>>>>
>>>>> The taxes aren't being used for UHC. Let's just focus on that for
>>>>> a moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> UHC can only be provided for through taxation. N&P only empowers,
>>>>> it doesn't circumvent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regulation of commerce doesn't not authorize compulsion to purchase.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, where's the basis?
>>>>
>>>> The mandate to buy insurance is necessary and proper to the overall
>>>> regulation of the health insurance industry authorized by the
>>>> Commerce Clause, and in particular to the regulation that requires
>>>> insurance companies to offer reasonably-priced insurance to those
>>>> with preexisting conditions.
>>>
>>> The commerce clause can't be construed as mandating that the citizens
>>> purchase a particular (NON COMMERCE) item.
>>
>> It's not the Commerce Clause. It's the Necessary and Proper clause
>> (the mandate), applied to the Commerce Clause (requiring insurance
>> companies to drop preexisting condition barriers).
>
> Although that is included in the proposed UHC legislation, it has
> nothing to do with the socialist UHC program, and isn't germane to this
> discussion.
>
>>>> Alternatively, the bill says that if you don't buy insurance you
>>>> will be taxed, in which case we are back to the Taxing power.
>>>
>>> The pretext is flawed, you can't mandate purchase and then 'fine'
>>> through a tax to justify it. It must either be tax, or it isn't
>>> constitutional.
>>
>> That's true only if the tax/fine is strictly a punishment, and not an
>> independent revenue raiser. Case law clearly permits revenue raisers
>> that also fine. I agree it is a close call on this issue, but not on
>> the Commerce Clause on above.
>>
>>> Then there's the sticking point the Nelson special-case Medicare
>>> vomitus of the proposed bill.
>>>
>>> "...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
>>> the United States..."
>>>
>>> Hardly uniform, hardly constitutional.
>>
>> Only the taxes need be uniform, not the spending.
>
> That's what I'm talking about. Nebraska is effectively not taxed. That
> is not uniform.
It is against the law to tax a specific person or small group.... so it
is there fore also illegal to give preferential treatment to one person
or a small group.
Where is that "equality that Liberals always talk about" what a bunch of
hypocrites.
--
Poetic Justice
Article 1 section 8, it limits spending by congress to the United States
government and you are using this necessary and proper.... as areason to
expand it to "the people" when it actually prohibits the congress from
giving money to "the people"
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
Poetic Justice
NO... I get what I paid for, it was not redistributed.
I voluntarily give my tax to pay for common defence.
I don't voluntarily give taxes to be given away or to be fraudulently
spent. Whether it's stolen by fraud or used for Bribery or just handed
out as redistribution of wealth it's theft and unconstitutional.
So I quit working and retired and now you pay all the tax. Go get`em and
I hope you enjoy paying your new taxes that I will never pay.
I may leave and start earning money again in a capitalist country
someday, or maybe not.
> Josh Rosenbluth
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
And you decided that....
--
Josh
> Josh wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Josh wrote:
>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>> Josh wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>>>> Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After more study, I'll slightly revise my previous statements:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The taxing power is limited by the general Welfare clause, and
>>>>>>> the general welfare clause is dependent on the taxing power.
>>>>>>> Therefore, general welfare of the United States can only be
>>>>>>> provided through taxation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> States,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re-iterating, it need not be thanks to the Necessary and Proper
>>>>>> clause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is UHC provided through tax?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no UHC. There is a bill passed by the House, and another
>>>>>> one that looks like it will pass the Senate. Both have taxes in
>>>>>> them, but both have other provisions as well. Those provisions
>>>>>> are either directly authorized by the Commerce Clause, or
>>>>>> indirectly through the Necessary and Proper clause as applied to
>>>>>> the Commerce Clause.
>>>>>
>>>>> The taxes aren't being used for UHC. Let's just focus on that for
>>>>> a moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> UHC can only be provided for through taxation. N&P only empowers,
>>>>> it doesn't circumvent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regulation of commerce doesn't not authorize compulsion to purchase.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, where's the basis?
>>>>
>>>> The mandate to buy insurance is necessary and proper to the overall
>>>> regulation of the health insurance industry authorized by the
>>>> Commerce Clause, and in particular to the regulation that requires
>>>> insurance companies to offer reasonably-priced insurance to those
>>>> with preexisting conditions.
>>>
>>> The commerce clause can't be construed as mandating that the citizens
>>> purchase a particular (NON COMMERCE) item.
>>
>> companies to drop preexisting condition barriers).
>
> Although that is included in the proposed UHC legislation, it has
> discussion.
Not germane? You brought the mandate up ("Regulation of commerce
doesn't not authorize compulsion to purchase").
>>>> Alternatively, the bill says that if you don't buy insurance you
>>>> will be taxed, in which case we are back to the Taxing power.
>>>
>>> The pretext is flawed, you can't mandate purchase and then 'fine'
>>> through a tax to justify it. It must either be tax, or it isn't
>>> constitutional.
>>
>> That's true only if the tax/fine is strictly a punishment, and not an
>> independent revenue raiser. Case law clearly permits revenue raisers
>> that also fine. I agree it is a close call on this issue, but not on
>> the Commerce Clause on above.
>>
>>> Then there's the sticking point the Nelson special-case Medicare
>>> vomitus of the proposed bill.
>>>
>>> "...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
>>> the United States..."
>>>
>>> Hardly uniform, hardly constitutional.
>>
>> Only the taxes need be uniform, not the spending.
>
> That's what I'm talking about. Nebraska is effectively not taxed. That
> is not uniform.
Nebraskans are taxed just like everyone else. Spending will be
non-uniformly distributed back to them, but that is permissible.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
I don't voluntarily give my tax money to pay for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. But, that doesn't violate any of my rights.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
Please provide a rational explanation of how it could.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
The Necessary and Proper clause is part of Article 1, Section 8.
Josh Rosenbluth