Healthcare and the Supreme Court

[ginnyfizz]

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.

 

That's a truly odd statement, if your argument was followed the Federal Government could do beggar all, since the framers of the constitution could not possibly have foreseen all of the specifics of the things that a 21st century Government would want to do. This is precisely why the judges are needed to interpret whether or not a statute is compliant with the guiding and overriding principles laid down by the Constitution. Please do try reading Marbury vs Madison

 

Marbury vs Madison summarized, not from Wikipedia

 

In fact it is held by many that the principle of judicial review was established in the USA long before Marbury vs Madison, since some of the Founding Fathers took a keen interest in the principles stated by Coke LJ in Britain,although these could not be applied direct, they were ideas that influenced them.

 

HeyYou is right, Aurelius is right, pseudobio is right and so, for that matter, am I.

Why do you think there was such an uproar when Obama, who is supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer and really should know better, tried to suggest that the judges had better not mess with his proposals? Because he was telling them they couldn't do what it is their duty and their right to do.

[Lisnpuppy]

The Constitution is known as a "living document" for precisely this reason. Because the Founding Fathers made it a framework on which the laws of the nation could be built upon. Legislation is made by Congress or introduced by the President based on the current interpretations of the law and the Constitution. If there is no specific mention or if the current laws are viewed to be out of date then something "new" may be introduced that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (as most laws are NOT specifically mentioned.) Then if people do not agree they will ask the Supreme Court for a "ruling" which is the Justices interpretations of the Constitution and any relevant case law (which they do not have to agree with or they can interpret the intent of the precedent case law.)

 

If they rule for the legislation then it becomes law and a new precedent is established. If they do not then its back to the drawing board with the Supreme Courts ruling firmly in mind.

 

If this concept were not so then the Constitution would have ceased to be relevant ten years after it was written. So, Moveing....try again.

 

p.s. Hey Ginny..That is Constitution with a capital "C" lol :tongue:

[marharth]

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.

How is it used in the context of states? It does not mention states at all. It gives the power to congress.

 

It says general welfare of the United States. That means the country as a whole. Not just the general welfare for the federal government and not just the general welfare for certain states.

[HeyYou]

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.

 

 

Really now?So, what about all those departments that the fed has set up over the last 100 years or so that aren't specifically mentioned? Seems the Fed believes otherwise. Also, if the Constitution is NOT to be 'interpreted', where does it define just what "the general welfare" is? Some would argue that the individual mandate in Obama-care falls under that particular line of text.

[Aurielius]

This thread was about Heathcare was it not? Because we seem to be sidetracked with a remedial civics lesson.....just a mild observation.

 

Mea etaim culpa.

 

Health care in Germany is a mix of private and quasi-public insurance plans. More than any model in the world, the German system offers a glimpse of what health care could look like in the U.S. That's assuming any bill survives the popular revolt. Unlike many countries with national health--Canada, say, or the U.K.--where private insurance generally supplements public coverage, Germany has two separate systems that coexist, with private plans indirectly benefiting from the cost controls of the public system. It would be interesting if our resident German member could relate his experience with this system pro or con.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Aurielius

[Moveing]

Aurielius

This thread was about Heathcare was it not?

This sidetrack should show you why Healthcare is not a power of the federal government.

 

 

marharth

How is it used in the context of states? It does not mention states at all. It gives the power to congress.

It isn't listed under the specific powers of the federal government such as to provide and maintain a Navy. This is clearly define while general welfare is nowhere define.

 

 

ginnyfizz

since the framers of the constitution could not possibly have foreseen all of the specifics of the things that a 21st century Government would want to do. This is precisely why the judges are needed to interpret whether or not a statute is compliant with the guiding and overriding principles laid down by the Constitution.

The SC can not interpretate the Constitution and even in Marbury vs. Madison i can't find any line which chance that fact. Its again just about acts of congress and laws but never ever the Constitution itself. And it doesn't matter if this Document was written 200, 300 or 800 Years ago becaus the basic principles do not chance. Government can't do it, end of the story. Doesn't many everyone else can't do it.

 

So if you think the Constitutional Lawyer Obama, which violated the Constitution ongoing since he was elected, is just implement whats written in the Constitution with this Obamacare thing, why shouldn't we all get I-pots and Mobiles and TVs and Playstations and Cars and Big Houses. That could be interpretat as Welfare, so lets tax everyone to get everyone a Playstation.

 

 

Aurielius

Health care in Germany is a mix of private and quasi-public insurance plans. More than any model in the world, the German system offers a glimpse of what health care could look like in the U.S.

Yeah, totaly bankrupt, corrupt and the people run to the doctor for every scratch and the costs explode. Also, you being forced to buy services which you don't want and can't choose the kind you care you want.

It isn't "quais public", its federal. And there is no such thing as private because everything is highly regulated.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Moveing

[HeyYou]

Aurielius

This thread was about Heathcare was it not?

This sidetrack should show you why Healthcare is not a power of the federal government.

 

 

marharth

How is it used in the context of states? It does not mention states at all. It gives the power to congress.

It isn't listed under the specific powers of the federal government such as to provide and maintain a Navy. This is clearly define while general welfare is nowhere define.

 

 

ginnyfizz

since the framers of the constitution could not possibly have foreseen all of the specifics of the things that a 21st century Government would want to do. This is precisely why the judges are needed to interpret whether or not a statute is compliant with the guiding and overriding principles laid down by the Constitution.

The SC can not interpretate the Constitution and even in Marbury vs. Madison i can't find any line which chance that fact. Its again just about acts of congress and laws but never ever the Constitution itself. And it doesn't matter if this Document was written 200, 300 or 800 Years ago becaus the basic principles do not chance. Government can't do it, end of the story. Doesn't many everyone else can't do it.

 

So if you think the Constitutional Lawyer Obama, which violated the Constitution ongoing since he was elected, is just implement whats written in the Constitution with this Obamacare thing, why shouldn't we all get I-pots and Mobiles and TVs and Playstations and Cars and Big Houses. That could be interpretat as Welfare, so lets tax everyone to get everyone a Playstation.

 

Wrong angle. The health care bill is REQUIRING folks to purchase a product provided by private industry. THAT is the main sticking point. DOES Congress have the power to TELL you that you MUST buy something, or be taxed? More apropos would be the fed requiring us to BUY an iPod, Mobile phone, and/or a playstation, to help bolster the economy. If everyone was legally required to buy a house, wouldn't that do wonders for the housing market???? Wouldn't that "help" the 'general welfare" of the nation?

[marharth]

marharth

How is it used in the context of states? It does not mention states at all. It gives the power to congress.

It isn't listed under the specific powers of the federal government such as to provide and maintain a Navy. This is clearly define while general welfare is nowhere define.

Yes it is listed under the powers of the federal government. Considering it is in the part of the Constitution that is about defining the powers of congress.

[Aurielius]

Sigh..I tried to re track this but...

 

@Moveing

Within this thread Independents, Liberals and Conservatives have all disagreed with your interpretation of the Constitution. There have been reasoned arguments, references to precedent and citing of case law. All you have presented is obdurate continual personal interpretation of the Constitution. So now I am going to ask you to cite case law that supports your contention or legal credentials / degrees that would make your personal view valid. Just a heads up, Ginny has a legal degree, I have a graduate History degree and both of us (well known staunch conservatives within this forum) have presented both case law and precedents to back our arguments..so what are you bringing to the table?

 

If I skipped anyone else's relevant credentials I apologize, I am just not conversant with the particulars of them.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Aurielius

[ginnyfizz]

p.s. Hey Ginny..That is Constitution with a capital "C" lol :tongue:

 

LOL I know, is just arthritic fingers and shift key not talking to each other again...

 

@HeyYou, and Lisnpuppy, precisely my point, in that the Federal Government has set up numerous departments and brought in numerous measures since the Constitution was first framed, thus the need for the judges to interpret (NOT interpretate, Moveing) both Statutes and the Constitution to test the compliance of the Statutes with the Constitution.

 

@Moveing, if you had really read Marbury vs Madison properly, you would know that it is remarkable for the fact that the Supreme Court actually stated, in their judgement, limitations on their own powers, but it was quite emphatic that it was within their remit, in fact it was their duty, to review legislation in the light of the Constitution.

 

So this is why Mr President basically got his wrists slapped by that judge the other week, in that he was seen to be trying to strongarm the judges into not putting the boot into the Obamacare bill - because it is their duty certainly to examine it. Interfering with judicial process...oh dear.