Since When?
Submitted by civil on October 3, 2009 - 10:18am
Since when did it become the resposibility of the Federal Government to provide any of its citizens with health care? From http://www.kevincraig.us/generalwelfare.htm
The Federal Government only has the powers which "We the People" delegated to it in the Constitution.
The New American Magazine listed all of the enumerated powers and duties of Congress. That list, which should be at the fingertips of every congressman, follows.
• Levy taxes.
• Borrow money on the credit of the United States.
• Spend.
• Pay the federal debts.
• Conduct tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.
• Declare war.
• Raise armies, a navy, and provide for the common defense.
• Introduce constitutional amendments and choose the mode of ratification.
• Call a convention on the application of two-thirds of the states.
• Regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
• Coin money.
• Regulate (standardize) the value of currency.
• Regulate patents and copyrights.
• Establish federal courts lower than the Supreme Court.
• Limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
• Standardize weights and measures.
• Establish uniform times for elections.
• Control the postal system.
• Establish laws governing citizenship.
• Make its own rules and discipline its own members.
• Provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and other federal crimes.
• Exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.
• Establish bankruptcy laws.
• Override presidential vetoes.
• Oversee all federal property and possessions.
• Fill a vacancy in the Presidency in cases of death or inability.
• Receive electoral votes for the Presidency.
• Keep and publish a journal of its proceedings.
• Conduct a census every ten years
• Approve treaties, Cabinet-level appointments, and appointments to the Supreme Court (Senate only).
• Impeach (House only) and try (Senate only) federal officers.
• Initiate all bills for raising revenue (House only).
The federal government was not given power over Education, Healthcare, Charity, Employment Practices, or Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. TNA adds,
These are the powers of Congress; there are no non-enumerated powers. Leaving nothing to inference, the Constitution even specifies that Congress may pass the laws “necessary and proper” for executing its specified powers. Congressmen have simply to study and apply the Constitution in order to restore sound government. That most fail to do so is not the fault of the Founders, but of the people who elect the congressmen and send them to Washington.
No where in the constitution is the congress empowered to oversee or mandate healthcare or education, yet today it is attempting to force both upon the people. This is patently wrong.
- civil's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Filed under:
Comments
"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."
Basically, the Constitution does empower Congress to "oversee or mandate health care or education," if it feels it is in the interests of the general welfare of the United States.
The founding fathers knew there would be important issues they couldn't forsee, so they made the Constitution "a living document." That means they purposely granted wide ranging powers to the Congress, but established a check on those powers through the other branches of government.
Your list doesn't say anything about funding air traffic control or creating national parks. I don't see anyone complaining about those being unconstitutional.
According to James Madison, the author of the Constitution, this clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. By calling this current health care thing Health Insurance Reform It might clear constitutional examination by use of the "commerce clause"., but overseeing or providing health care is not vested in the federal government by the quoted section.
If we lived under your strict interpretation of the Constitution, then we would have to give Alaska back to the Russians and southern Nevada and Arizona (the Gadsen Purchase) back to Mexico, since nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically give Congress vested powers to spend money on land purchases. That also means we'd all have to start learning French, since the Louisiana Purchase would no longer be a valid contract.
The ironic thing here is that as French citizens, we would all be entitled to universal healthcare supplied by the government. So maybe you're on to something here Civil...
Not my interpretation. Those are the words of the man who wrote the Constitution. Besides, the purchase of Alaska can be seen as a strategic move, bolstering our defenses both from Britain and Russia (not exactly friends at the time) and it also increased our wealth , both fitting nicely within the scope of section 8.. The "purchase" of the Southwest territories from Mexico did much the same, coming after a war with Mexico it certainly increased our defensive posture and ultimately contributed to our overall wealth.The Louisiana Purchase, while not contributing directly to our defensive needs, did unite the country from coast to coast, increasing our wealth ad overall safety. And you are right, we would be speaking French and going to the U.S so we could get decent health care. The health care bill as currently being discussed neither increases our defenses nor does it conform to anything in the Constitution. And even with our current system I haven't seen anybody head yp france for medical treatment. If it's so good I wonder why?
James Madison also saw the Bill of Rights as completely unnecessary. So despite being the author, and one of our most enlightened founding fathers, the guy was not infallible when it came to the Constitution.
Again, the very first sentence under Section 8 of the Constitution, that enumerates powers of the Congress, allows for the federal government to provide for the general welfare of the United States. The definition of "welfare" is: health, happiness, or prosperity; well being. So laws improving health care are well within the powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution.
It's why no litigant has even challenged the Constitutional basis of Medicare or Medicaid in the past 45 years. Because they know the Supreme Court would uphold the Constitutional nature of a law designed to promote the general welfare of the United States.
So you're saying they should also get rid of Social Security and Medicare as well? I wonder how many people who are on those two programs would gladly give them up so that the government can go back to the way the founders thought it should run.
The Democrats enacted both social secuity (FDR) and medicare (LBJ) forcng the people to pay into it without choice. I would gladly give it up if they will repay me all the funds I was forced to involuntarily pay into them over a period of 60 years. I could have realized a better return on my money doing my own investment and done it without fraud and misuse.
It doesn't matter to me who enacted it, I suppose it could have been repealed during any administration since then. I don't see any protests against medicare or social security except that medicare has waste in it.
I'm sure that there is more that the government does that people like and don't want to get rid of, but maybe that's your point that this isn't a popularity contest.
Your original question was would I give it up. My answer was yes, as long as I get a refund. Your next question was are there other things in government I would like changed. Again, yes. I would start with Obama and proceed thru the congress.
I'm with ya that we don't need professional politicians. We should have term limits for everybody. This is a public service, not a career.
I think the reason you don't see protests, dwood87, is that most folks know we're STUCK with these two programs.... and are CYNICAL about the odds of ever getting them changed.
Yes, my mom's a fan of Social Security, now that she's 66 and retired! But by the time I get to where she is, I know fully well I'll be getting out a lot LESS than I myself have put in.
But if you say one word about reforming Social Security, huge waves of fear cause the 60+ crowd to rise up against you, even if you swear you're only going to modify the program for the NEW KIDS coming into the job market...onward.
What a joke: forced into a Ponzi scheme bigger than Bernie Madhoff's. Too bad I can't declare myself a full-time member of the clergy and opt out of it !
........Barry is like Ford Motor Company..........he has a BETTER idea..........he's trying to rewrite the contstitution..............the" all hat cowboy" seems to be running into some opposition from patriots though..........what happened to "if you can't afford it you can't BUY it?"..........now it's "your right and somebody ELSE can pay for it"...........some might say that we're screwing with "natural selection"........."survival of the fittest"....................we give veterans medical for the rest of their life........BECAUSE THEY EARNED IT !!!.....now they want to give the same privilege to the masses......if the plan REALLY saved the country money then it would have some merit....but the working , middle class is gonna be asked to get out our checkbooks as we always are.......I can hear them now........ a few years from now.....if ObamaCare is instituted......."well , we THOUGHT it would save money.........but we miscalibrated ......it was Bush's fault".......people pay for their level of care as they can afford to..........the poor and indigent get Medicaid.....the elderly get Medicare................people with little or NO money can go to hospitals and receive care from the "walk in clinics" or ER if it's serious......and walk out without paying a dime..............the illegals use phony socials half the time..............the system needs some work.......but it's not in complete failure............it serves MOST of the population.............it's all about "redistribution"...........taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots"............maybe there's a reason why the "have nots" are what they are.........maybe it's not their fault...........regardless.....nobody REALLY believes the propsed plan would "pay for itself" or "not add anymore to the deficit"...........big brother already takes 30% off the top..........then more later for spending the already taxed money on goods......even FOOD !!!..............then they tax us on our property that we purchased with our already taxed money...........then they do it again.......and again............and again.............now why was it that we started this country?...............freedom........taxation...........heavy handed govt without representation..................they ought to come up with a plan........let evrybody read it........and let the COUNTRY vote on it................let the people speak for once ........instead of the "system" and "lobbyists"............
eldoggg