Fear of a Black President

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

'Change' is needed in the US health care system, no doubt about it.

But the solution is less government , not more, in most cases.

Good to see you coming around on this one.

I'm sure the details can be argued. Whether a virtually entirely state run system like Britain's NHS or a virtually completely private universal health care system like the Swiss one would be better is anybody's guess, and arguments can be found for and against either one (or any other system).

How 'bout letting individuals make their own choices whether they want to be part of any 'system' at all?

That means all the public schools, roads, Department of Health, and the Social Security Administration can be eliminated.

Article1.
Section 8.
...
To establish post offices and post roads;
...
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

cicerone imposter wrote:

That means all the public schools .... can be eliminated.

Schools are usually the function of LOCAL government , CI.

Ever heard of the county, the city governments?

...
What? You haven't heard of the Federal Department of Education or Bush's No Child Left Behind? Where have you been all these years?

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

There is zero authority in the Constitution to provide the general welfare or any other form of charity however.

Well, I'm not an American, but I'm fairly sure that there was something about the "general welfare" in the Constitution....

Yes there is. In the Preamble to be exact:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Articles themselves go on to define authority for military service with the President as Commander in Chief to defend the nation. But the operative word for national defense is provide. Because the Founders put such high importance on personal freedoms and right to private property, they were very careful to phrase it promote the general Welfare, not provide it. They would have seen it as immoral and tyrannical to confiscate property from Citizen A and give that to Citizen B. And so it was interpreted by all Presidents and Congresses thereafter until FDR started a snowball rolling that eventually turned that concept on its ear.

"Promote" means that the government will not interfere with and shall enact laws and policies and regulations that will encourage private enterprise and well being. It was never intended that the government provide that.

ican711nm wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The US Constitution specifies national defense as a mandatory function of the federal government.

It also provides for spending for the health and welfare of the people.

Quote:

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...
Article I.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sooo..... are you agreeing or disagreeing with Advocate?

So? What's your point?

The Declaration of Independence
...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Founders always intended that any taxes levied for the 'general welare' would be used for the benefit of everybody--roads, commonly used government buildings, maintenance of the army and navy and such--and not for any individual. Again it would have been unthinkable to the Founders to confiscate lawful property from one man in order to give that to another.

I'm disagreeing with advocate. No where in the USA Constitution does it provide for spending for the health and welfare of the people. It provides only for "the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

...
Well, I really like your argument. Funny enough, it appears to be valid for both the "common defense" and the "general welfare".

As Article 1, Section 8 states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;" etc.

So, if a forced redistribution of money from Citizen A to Citizen B would be "immoral and tyrannical", as you put it, then certainly a forced confiscation of property to pay for a standing army would be "immoral and tyrannical" as well.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
...
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

How is the public school system different from universal health care?

Foxfyre wrote:

The Founders always intended that any taxes levied for the 'general welare' would be used for the benefit of everybody--roads, commonly used government buildings, maintenance of the army and navy and such--and not for any individual. Again it would have been unthinkable to the Founders to confiscate lawful property from one man in order to give that to another.

Interesting... In that case, your definition seems to cover a state run universal health care system, as long as every citizen of the United States would have the same access to health care.

Foxfyre wrote:

The Founders always intended that any taxes levied for the 'general welare' would be used for the benefit of everybody--roads, commonly used government buildings, maintenance of the army and navy and such--and not for any individual. Again it would have been unthinkable to the Founders to confiscate lawful property from one man in order to give that to another.

Interesting... In that case, your definition seems to cover a state run universal health care system, as long as every citizen of the United States would have the same access to health care.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The Founders always intended that any taxes levied for the 'general welare' would be used for the benefit of everybody--roads, commonly used government buildings, maintenance of the army and navy and such--and not for any individual. Again it would have been unthinkable to the Founders to confiscate lawful property from one man in order to give that to another.

Interesting... In that case, your definition seems to cover a state run universal health care system, as long as every citizen of the United States would have the same access to health care.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

ican711nm wrote:

I'm disagreeing with advocate. No where in the USA Constitution does it provide for spending for the health and welfare of the people. It provides only for "the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

I see. So, as the Constitution contains no clause about the appropriation of money to build public roads, and as public roads, arguably, fall under the "general welfare" clause - would you say that government built public roads are also unconstitutional?

Article I.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
...
To establish post offices and post roads;

That would be true IF the required taxes were equally applied, IF all would have the choice to benefit equally, IF there was no erosion in quality and access, and IF such services could not be provided more efficiently and effectively by the private sector. The Founders did not think it appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector and that was another principle that prevailed until FDR's change in focus that was quite well intended but has produced so many unintended negative consequences.