Healthcare and the Supreme Court

[Moveing]

And again, it doesn't mention anything about that the SC would have the power to interpretate the Constitution. It says "rising under this Constitution,", it doesn't say "THE Constitution".

 

i'am not rude i just insist on the facts. And the fact is that there is no mention at all that the SC can interpretate the Constitution and there is no mention of such thing as Healthcare under the Powers of the Federal Government . End of the Story.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Moveing

[grannywils]

@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.

 

@A, Utor minor lacuna

[Aurielius]

And again, it doesn't mention anything about that the SC would have the power to interpretate the Constitution. It says "rising under this Constitution,", it doesn't say "THE Constitution".

 

i'am not rude i just insist on the facts. And the fact is that there is no mention at all that the SC can interpretate the Constitution and there is no mention of such thing as Healthcare under the Powers of the Federal Government . End of the Story.

Really..this is the semantic difference that you want to stand or fall on? The difference of 'the' and 'this'? Asserting that one is exclusionary and the other is not is perseverance in the face of facts which is obduracy not literacy. At the initial writing of the Constitution just how many federal versions do you assert there where in existence for that bit of line parsing to be valid? I am not among the advocates of the legality of the Heathcare Act, but your stance is not one in which I would like to be using as a shield against countervailing arguments.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

And again, it doesn't mention anything about that the SC would have the power to interpretate the Constitution. It says "rising under this Constitution,", it doesn't say "THE Constitution".

 

i'am not rude i just insist on the facts. And the fact is that there is no mention at all that the SC can interpretate the Constitution and there is no mention of such thing as Healthcare under the Powers of the Federal Government . End of the Story.

 

Show me where it says then, that supreme court WILL NOT interpret the constitution.

 

There's no mention of NASA either, does that make NASA unconstitutional?

[pseudobio]

@ Moveing

 

I did not get the verbatim quote of the Constitutional text from Wikipedia, but from the very link Ginnyfizz had in her above post. The Supreme Court made its first important interprative decision in "Marbury vs. Madison" under the John Marshall led court, which firmly established its role as the interpretive body of (as you put it) THE Constitution.

[marharth]

"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

 

Congress has the power to pass ANY law that is for the general good of the country. The above is why US judges have ruled medicare, social security, and other social programs constitutional.

[HeyYou]

:D

 

No, I do not think Obama-care is constitutional.

 

I think they should just repeal it, and start over again. Most of what the current law contains was based on the premise that folks would HAVE to buy insurance. Without it, the rest of it fails.

 

 

Some flavor of single payer system would be good, at least for things like basic care, and also for catastrophic care.... some of the gray areas in the middle could be optional......

[Moveing]

HeyYou

Show me where it says then, that supreme court WILL NOT interpret the constitution.

I don't play any games with you, this isn't how this works. If its not mentioned in the Constitution, the Federal Government can't do it and thats it.

 

 

marharth

Congress has the power to pass ANY law that is for the general good of the country. The above is why US judges have ruled medicare, social security, and other social programs constitutional.

No that isn't true, show me the part where the federal government can make laws for wealth redistribution for the general good. Promote the general Welfare, in the preamble of the United States Constitution does not mention any kind of taxation for redistribution, otherwise it would be mention under under Article 1, Section 8 . But it doesn't.

[marharth]

That quote was from the direct start of article 1, section 8. Not the preamble.

 

It says congress has the power to collect taxes to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the country.

 

You are correct that if a power is not given to the federal government, it is the power of the state. In this case however, the power was given to the federal government.

Edited April 9, 2012 by marharth

[Moveing]

That quote was from the direct start of article 1, section 8. Not the preamble.

But there its used in the context of states and not persons, and its not mentioned anymore among the specific powers of the government to do this and that. Otherwise, redistribution of goods from one group to another isn't the general wealth.