| Author |
Topic:
US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 6:23am
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Kimball_Kinnison posted:
Ben_Skywalker posted:
Kimball, you quoted Madison and Jefferson. They lived in a totally different era. People did not have to worry about paying for food, rent, utility bills, car insurance, gas, and indeed health insurance.. The general welfare of the people had a totally different meaning back then.
So? The Constitution constituted an explicit grant of powers to the federal government. There is no way to grant additional powers to the government, except through an Amendment to the Constitution. If the power to do whatever the government wants in order to support the "general welfare" wasn't granted by the Constitution when it was ratified, then it hasn't been granted today unless the Constitution was amended to grant that power.
Can you point me to the amendment that grants that power?
You see, the written word has a very specific purpose. It is designed to take a specific thought and fix it in a permanent medium. The Constitution isn't just a bunch of words that you can redefine to mean whatever you want. It is a collection of specific thought, accepted by the People, dictating what authority they were granting to the federal government. Those thoughts don't change just because you've redefined the words to mean what you want. The thoughts and the meaning of those words remains the same until you change the words themselves (i.e. amend the document).
If the "general welfare" clause wasn't a blank check in 1789, it still isn't a blank check in 2007.
Kimball Kinnison
Kimball, that is based entirely on the assumption that the meaning of words doesn't ever change, which simply isn't true. It's not about people "wanting words to mean something different", it's about the fact that they do mean something different now. It's called context.
Take the word "communication", which means to exchange information. I've made this argument before, but communication at the time the constitution was written means something very different than it does now, not in it's definition, but in it's context. They didn't have email, phones, etc, back in the 18th century, but would you adopt the viewpoint that these aren't covered by the free speech clause? Of course not.
I understand your argument about powers, and it is solid and strong. But that argument stands by itself, it doesn't need this arcane idea that the meaning of words are static, or that the changing of such meanings constitutes a form of lawlessness or activism on the part of the government.
I typed a long post about this in the abortion thread a long time ago, which you didn't have time to answer. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this now  .
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 8:25am
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Vaderize03 posted:
Kimball, that is based entirely on the assumption that the meaning of words doesn't ever change, which simply isn't true. It's not about people "wanting words to mean something different", it's about the fact that they do mean something different now. It's called context.
And you missed what I said in that post. I repeat:Kimball_Kinnison posted:
You see, the written word has a very specific purpose. It is designed to take a specific thought and fix it in a permanent medium. The Constitution isn't just a bunch of words that you can redefine to mean whatever you want. It is a collection of specific thought, accepted by the People, dictating what authority they were granting to the federal government. Those thoughts don't change just because you've redefined the words to mean what you want. The thoughts and the meaning of those words remains the same until you change the words themselves (i.e. amend the document).
Yes, the meaning of words changes over time. I've never claimed otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that the thought expressed by the words has been changed.
If every last copy of the Constitution were destroyed in a giant fire or nuclear holocaust, would that destroy the thoughts behind it? Not at all. If King George had torn up the Declaration of Independence, would that have simply ended the Revolution right there? Of course not. The words themselves are only tools used to express the thoughts, and so regardless of whether the words still exist, the thoughts behind the words have not changed.
In the same way, the changing meaning of words today doesn't change the thoughts behind those words when they were fixed to paper.
That is called context. Without the historical context of any document, you cannot understand its meaning.
And, once again, you have painted me as a constructionist, as opposed to an originalist. Your free speech example really doesn't work in this case, because the definition of communication isn't (and wasn't) based on the medium used to communicate. For example, look up the word in Webster's 1828 Dictionary (the oldest one I could find online, and one of the oldest American dictionaries).Webster's posted:
{COMMUNICATION}, n.
1. The act of imparting, conferring, or delivering, from one to another; as the communication of knowledge, opinions or facts.
2. Intercourse by words, letters or messages; interchange of thoughts or opinions, by conference or other means.
Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, Ye sought for David in times past to be king over you. 2 Sam 3.
Let your communication be, yea, yea; nay, nay. Mat 5.
In 1 Cor 15:33, Evil communications corrupt good manners, the word may signify conversation, colloquial discourses, or customary association and familiarity.
3. Intercourse; interchange of knowledge; correspondence; good understanding between men.
Secrets may be carried so far as to stop the communication necessary among all who have the management of affairs.
4. Connecting passage; means of passing from place to place; as a strait or channel between seas or lakes, a road between cities or countries, a gallery between apartments in a house, an avenue between streets, &c.
Keep open a communication with the besieged place.
5. That which is communicated or imparted.
The house received a communication from the Governor, respecting the hospital.
6. In rhetoric, a trope by which a speaker or writer takes his hearer or speaker as a partner in his sentiments, and says we, instead of I or you.
Similarly, when you make the argument about the Second Amendment, it also fails, because even modern firearms fall under its definition of arms.
All in all, that's a rather specious argument.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 10:01am
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
I'll get to this later, Kimball, but once again you've taken the narrowest tack possible. You claim I missed the point of your argument, but you missed the point of mine as well with the statement that the thoughts behind the meaning of words doesn't change. I never claimed that it did, but historical context is something to be used when looking at how to interpret something in the modern day; it isn't the only factor, or an expressely limiting one.
Cute posting from an old dictionary, though  .
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 10:17am
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Vaderize03 posted:
I'll get to this later, Kimball, but once again you've taken the narrowest tack possible. You claim I missed the point of your argument, but you missed the point of mine as well with the statement that the thoughts behind the meaning of words doesn't change. I never claimed that it did, but historical context is something to be used when looking at how to interpret something in the modern day; it isn't the only factor, or an expressely limiting one.
The problem si that you keep confusing the thought with the medium used to express the thought. It's part of the same mistake that caused the dot-bomb era.
For example, what is the difference between buying something from a catalog and buying something from a website? In reality, there is no difference except the medium used. Yes, the web makes things significantly faster than mail order, but that is irrelevant. Similarly, what is the difference between having a conversation with someone face-to-face and a telephone conversation? How about from a land line or a cell phone? In reality, there are no real differences between any of these, except the medium through which they occur. They are all the same thought or idea.
But, your objection is irrelevant as well for a simple matter. Where does the government get the authority? You can't simply reinterpret the Constitution, regardless of the modern context, and say that in reality the People granted the government a power that they hadn't granted them before, and that they never intended to grant them. When interpreting the Constitution, the question is very simple: does the government have the authority to perform the action (pass the law, etc) or not? The general welfare clause, as I demonstrated earlier with the Jefferson and Madison quotes, doesn't grant any additional authority to the government beyond its already enumerated powers. It's not a blank check to do whatever it wants, but instead a statement that the government has the authority to carry out its enumerated powers.
What other reading of that could be logical? If you say that it allows any law that works for the "general welfare", then where is the limit? There is none. You can rationalize anything as supporting the general welfare, up to and including executing every last Ron Paul supporter in the country. (I defy anyone to explain how that wouldn't be for the general welfare. )
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
chibiangi
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 12:11pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Captain obvious here: this isn't a Constitutional issue. It is a policy issue and as such Congress does retain the right to enact laws establishing UHC. It doesn't have to come in the form of an Ammendment or written upon a stone tablet by the hands of god.
I wonder if more Americans would go for UHC if it were based on a two-tiered system or a system which requires employers to provide health care at a reasonable cost at the employees discretion?
In the second scenario, essentially the government would be subsidizing health care while the average citizen would still retain the right to "choose" or opt-out. While I am not advocating such as system, I do think a large part of the negative reaction that Americans have to UHC is that their ability to choose their doctors and how their health care will be provided will be taken away. It is perhaps my biggest concern with UHC. What kind of restrictions or decisions will be made that take away my ability to get proper health care? For example, people keep mentioning obesity. Well, I certainly do not want to buy into a system that asesses a moral value to a person and declines health care based on that.
For me, I pay the extra money for a PPO so if a doctor I go to is incompetent or just a total jerk (why are so many like that?) then I can go elsewhere. I can admit I have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the idea of being forced into an HMO system where I couldn't have that freedom. [When I think of someone I know who is at 36 weeks into her pregnancy, who was hospitalized for high blood pressure and despite her claims that she did not have high blood pressue, was told she did have it because she was fat. Turns out they were using the wrong sized cuff. Can you imagine if they had c-sectioned her? For the wrong sized cuff? Yeah, I'd change doctors ASAP.]
-----signature-----
Talk nerdy to me.
mujaki na kao de boku ni hohoemu
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 1:24pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
chibiangi posted:
Captain obvious here: this isn't a Constitutional issue. It is a policy issue and as such Congress does retain the right to enact laws establishing UHC. It doesn't have to come in the form of an Ammendment or written upon a stone tablet by the hands of god.
Yes, it is a Constitutional issue. Anything Congress does is a Constitutional issue.
Congress can't do anything that the Constitution doesn't give it the authority to do. Simply calling it a "policy issue" doesn't give Congress that authority. Congress's authority is limited to those powers granted in Article I Section 8.
What in there gives Congress any authority over health care? The Commerce Clause? That's easily the most abused clause in the whole document, and was only meant to cover the actual act of commerce between states, not everything and anything that might, conceivably someday have the potential to be related to interstate commerce. The General Welfare Clause? As I demonstrated above, that's limited only to the ability to carry out the other enumerated powers.
I don't see anything else in there that could cover health care, do you?
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 1:42pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Kimball, I would agree except for the fact that I don't see Medicare and Social Security in there and they have been around for 47 and 77 years, respectively, without having been declared unconstitutional.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 1:50pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Jediflyer posted:
Kimball, I would agree except for the fact that I don't see Medicare and Social Security in there and they have been around for 47 and 77 years, respectively, without having been declared unconstitutional.
Well, that doesn't automatically mean they aren't unconstitutional. Not that I think they are, but the lack of a given ruling isn't the presence of the opposite.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women."--Sarah Palin
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 2:33pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
KnightWriter posted:
Jediflyer posted:
Kimball, I would agree except for the fact that I don't see Medicare and Social Security in there and they have been around for 47 and 77 years, respectively, without having been declared unconstitutional.
Well, that doesn't automatically mean they aren't unconstitutional. Not that I think they are, but the lack of a given ruling isn't the presence of the opposite.
Exactly.
In fact, the only thing that made the Social Security Act "constitutional" was the "switch in time that saved nine". The SSA's website actually has a page devoted to the question. The only justifications they could come up with were the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause, both of which had previously been rejected by the Supreme Court repeatedly as inapplicable. Similar actions had been ruled unconstitutional because of the Tenth Amendment.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 3:11pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Kimball, didn't that webpage you just linked to say the court ruled Social Security was constitutional?
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 3:27pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Jediflyer posted:
Kimball, didn't that webpage you just linked to say the court ruled Social Security was constitutional?
Read it a bit closer. It only did so after the infamous "switch in time that saved nine", where it was one of the only options to prevent Roosevelt from packing the Supreme Court. Many similar and related programs had been ruled unconstitutional as being beyond the authority granted by the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause, and a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
The Court has been moving in the other direction over the past decade or so, where it has finally started correcting the abuses of the Commerce Clause (and the shift was happening even before the Roberts and Alito appointments). Any "Universal Health Care" program would face significant court challenges, and there's a very good chance that it would be ruled unconstitutional.
At the very least, you have to admit that the Court's sudden reversal on the constitutionality of such programs leaves it very suspect.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 5:09pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
- Date Edited:
12/22/07 5:10pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jediflyer
|
Maybe at that point in time, but 70 years is an extraordinarily long time for a constitutionally suspect program to endure.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 5:13pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
Jediflyer posted:
Maybe at that point in time, but after 70 years, it is an extraordinary long time for a constitutionally suspect program to endure.
Except that the court moves in cycles, and it is cycling towards the more originalist bent right now, and has been since the early 1990s (such as in the Lopez case). As it applies to Universal Health Care, the matter of constitutionality is extremely suspect.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
12/22/07 5:15pm
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
|
If that is true Kimball, why hasn't the recent Medicare legislation been overturned. It is basically universal health care for those over 65.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DroidGeneral
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
12/23/07 10:17am
Subject:
RE: US Universal Health Care Discussion
- Date Edited:
12/23/07 10:17am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
DroidGeneral
|
|
We can argue over the Constitutionality of it after we figure out where we are going to get the money from. The government already now has future obligations totaling around $47 trillion in what it has promised in medicaid, medicare and social security. We don't have the money for a government run healthcare system. Raising taxes won't fix it. It won't generate enough revenue.
-----signature-----
"The Force will be with you, always." "Star Wars isn't dead."-George Lucas  Ron Paul 2008
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
