Healthcare and the Supreme Court

[Moveing]

life goes on.

And the only space for this living and breathing thing is the amendment process. But this is just for giving people more rights. It is no right to be a burden on someone else wallet and let him pay for someone else medical bill. Constitution is clear about that, if you want Healthcare vote on a States Level for it. Or pack your grab and move to the socialistic paradise of the EUSSR were everyone gets federal healthcare and has to pay for it his hole life.

 

 

And please don't bore me with this "The Constitution is outdated" stuff because its not. Read it first, because you didn't.

 

There was nothing in the constitution about a postal service either... yet the government did that....

The Postal Clause under Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution was established at the Second Continental Congress 1775. And many people were against that because they predicts that this will become a waste of taxe money. And today the Postal Office is bankrupt.

[HeyYou]

life goes on.

And the only space for this living and breathing thing is the amendment process. But this is just for giving people more rights. It is no right to be a burden on someone else wallet and let him pay for someone else medical bill. Constitution is clear about that, if you want Healthcare vote on a States Level for it. Or pack your grab and move to the socialistic paradise of the EUSSR were everyone gets federal healthcare and has to pay for it his hole life.

 

 

And please don't bore me with this "The Constitution is outdated" stuff because its not. Read it first, because you didn't.

 

There was nothing in the constitution about a postal service either... yet the government did that....

The Postal Clause under Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution was established at the Second Continental Congress 1775. And many people were against that because they predicts that this will become a waste of taxe money. And today the Postal Office is bankrupt.

 

You make some pretty bold assumptions about someone that you have no clue about........ not a good plan.

 

And you are ALREADY paying for everyone else's health care, if you live in the states. Who do you think pays for medicare/medicaid? Who do you think pays for all the folks that DON'T pay their medical bills?

 

So, according to your theory on health care, if you can't afford it, you should just drop dead so you are not a 'burden' on the rest of society?

[Moveing]

You make some pretty bold assumptions about someone that you have no clue about........ not a good plan.

What? You obvious didn't read the constitution otherwise you would know it better.

 

And Medicare is also unconstitutional. Since nearly hundret years the Government of the USA operates unconstitutional because there were always well meaning idiots who tought "Oh i'am sure its for a good purpose". Yeah, yeah what i'am thinking. And ofcourse don't forgett the "Universal healthcare or death" stuff.

[HeyYou]

You make some pretty bold assumptions about someone that you have no clue about........ not a good plan.

What? You obvious didn't read the constitution otherwise you would know it better.

 

And Medicare is also unconstitutional. Since nearly hundret years the Government of the USA operates unconstitutional because there were always well meaning idiots who tought "Oh i'am sure its for a good purpose". Yeah, yeah what i'am thinking. And ofcourse don't forgett the "Universal healthcare or death" stuff.

 

For being unconstitutional, they have both sure been around for quite some time....... where are the Supreme court challenges to have it scrapped?

 

I suppose, it all depends on the individuals interpretation...... unfortunately, the 'individuals' we elect to represent us, don't seem to care overmuch about the constitutionality of the various laws they pass, else, Obama-care would never have been signed into law. Convincing congress to stick with what they are legally allowed is pretty much a lost cause. They will do whatever they want, and leave it to the courts to sort out what's ok, and what isn't. But, even at that, it seems that various folks seem to think that just because congress passes it, and the president signs it, the supreme court should simply accept it...... Wonder if they are familiar with the term "checks and balances".....

 

Techically, social security is unconstitutional as well.....

[Moveing]

I suppose, it all depends on the individuals interpretation......

No! The Supreme Court hasn't the ability to interpretat anything of that because its very clear. Interpretation doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter who tries to interpret the constitution. Its very simple written so that everyone could understand it and thats the end of the story.

 

 

Techically, social security is unconstitutional as well.....

It isn't technically, it is! Should i wrote it again? Should i wrote it bigger?

Just because unconstitutional law was passed, which makes the laws illegal and no one has to follow them, doesn't make future unconstitutional legislation constitutional. There is no techically, there is no interpretation, there is no maybee and there is no outdated. The Constitution is very clear just read it for at least one time.

[Aurielius]

@Moveing

As staunch constitutional advocate the concept that the court does not interpret the constitution as it pertains to any legislation under review or challenge is absurd. The list of issues that have been explored are quite extensive from the validity and extant of Federalism to the limits of the Supremacy clause. To state the original document with it's amendments is crystal clear, flies in the face of the consistent challenges to the 1st, 2nd. 14th amendment (just to pick a few) which has interpretations from either side of the aisle from their inception to current date. If this was such a matter of self evident writing then there would be no need for constitutional scholars or lawyers. A slight read of the history of the court is something I might recommend to you.

[pseudobio]

@Moveing

 

Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution states the following.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This means that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution in relation to all US laws, persons, government officials, and organizations, foreign and domestic.....as long as they are on US soil.

[Moveing]

@pseudobio

 

So you can wrote the Articel bold and italic but could you also just underline the section where it gives the supreme court the authority to interpretate the constitution? Just because its written on wikipedia doesn't make it true.

The SC can just interpretate Laws which were based on the Constitution, not the Constitution itself.

[HeyYou]

@pseudobio

 

So you can wrote the Articel bold and italic but could you also just underline the section where it gives the supreme court the authority to interpretate the constitution? Just because its written on wikipedia doesn't make it true.

The SC can just interpretate Laws which were based on the Constitution, not the Constitution itself.

 

Really? Then why is it, two supreme court justices can look at the same law, one thinks its fine, the other disagrees. How is that anything other than the justices interpreting the constitution?

[ginnyfizz]

@pseudobio

 

So you can wrote the Articel bold and italic but could you also just underline the section where it gives the supreme court the authority to interpretate the constitution? Just because its written on wikipedia doesn't make it true.

The SC can just interpretate Laws which were based on the Constitution, not the Constitution itself.

 

Wow, breathtakingly rude or what? It's usual to bold/italic/quote marks something when you are indicating that it is a quote and thus not your own words.

 

In fact pseudobio was quoting the actual text of the US Constitution, verbatim. It can be found at a number of sources, that aren't Wikipedia, for example my first hit was here;-

US Constitution Online

 

*Puts lawyer's wig on...*

 

Which part, exactly, of "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" is unclear? That quite clearly gives the judges power to interpret the Constitution, Statute Law and Treaties. In any country that has a written Constitution, it inevitably follows that the judges have the authority to interpret the Constitution in order to decide upon whether or not a Statute or Treaty is compliant.