Isn't Universal Health care guaranteed in the Constitution?

[Kitsura Kura]

Thought the preamble holds no actual legal power, I think it represents what the was originally intended for the constitution.

"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."


I believe this alone says that the people have the right to determine what is "general welfare" so privatized health company's outside of the governments influence would be the only ones that have the right to establish a health care system. However the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 over steped its bonds (In my opinion) by implemnting this in there bill

"(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act (7 U.S.C. 227(b)), from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

Source: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148712.htm

This directly subverted the purpose of the constitution which was to give the power to the people. If congress has simply opened the borders between states for health care prices would have dropped significantly and more people would have coverage /job's from all the branch offices opening up.

But to get back on topic, No i dont not think the constitution supports a Government run health program. However Citizen run Health care is within our rights of the constitution.

[agrab0ekim]

mitoguard

.

agrab

well then, states have the right to kill their people under the 10th (not under the 14th, damnit)
and, states have the right to leave under the 10th
and i have the right to kill without punishment under the 9th

just because it reserves rights does not mean that there are more rights

This is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard you say. I can't even begin to guess at what neurons misfired to produce the grotesque caricature of reasoning that led you to say this.

I believe that you are looking at it without the context. My argument was a responce to him explaining that because it is not defined, then they have that right. I responded with other undefined areas, indicating a similar logic reasoning. Personally, I do not believe that either of the three statements is correct.

[agrab0ekim]

Zealth, you should be more pissed at state constitutions which make it a right than the federal one that leaves it up to the states

[agrab0ekim]

Kitsura Kura

Thought the preamble holds no actual legal power, I think it represents what the was originally intended for the constitution.

"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."


I believe this alone says that the people have the right to determine what is "general welfare" so privatized health company's outside of the governments influence would be the only ones that have the right to establish a health care system. However the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 over steped its bonds (In my opinion) by implemnting this in there bill

"(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act (7 U.S.C. 227(b)), from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

Source: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148712.htm

This directly subverted the purpose of the constitution which was to give the power to the people. If congress has simply opened the borders between states for health care prices would have dropped significantly and more people would have coverage /job's from all the branch offices opening up.

But to get back on topic, No i dont not think the constitution supports a Government run health program. However Citizen run Health care is within our rights of the constitution.

The first problem is that general welfare is the security and well being of the nation, not the common term today
The constitution doesnt give power to the people, it gives it to the states. States can have state-wide mandated health care (10th), the people have no consitutional power to have it otherwise

[Kitsura Kura]

agrab0ekim

Kitsura Kura

Thought the preamble holds no actual legal power, I think it represents what the was originally intended for the constitution.

"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."


I believe this alone says that the people have the right to determine what is "general welfare" so privatized health company's outside of the governments influence would be the only ones that have the right to establish a health care system. However the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 over steped its bonds (In my opinion) by implemnting this in there bill

"(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act (7 U.S.C. 227(b)), from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

Source: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148712.htm

This directly subverted the purpose of the constitution which was to give the power to the people. If congress has simply opened the borders between states for health care prices would have dropped significantly and more people would have coverage /job's from all the branch offices opening up.

But to get back on topic, No i dont not think the constitution supports a Government run health program. However Citizen run Health care is within our rights of the constitution.

The first problem is that general welfare is the security and well being of the nation, not the common term today
The constitution doesnt give power to the people, it gives it to the states. States can have state-wide mandated health care (10th), the people have no consitutional power to have it otherwise

Then the line before General Welfare would be redundant. "Provide for the common Defense." I think you sir think the term Welfare was mutated in the last 100 years, when in fact the word welfare means Health and Prosperity. And not anywhere in that entire statement dose it say "We the representatives of the united states." This was made when there was no "standing government" to speak of, only ordinary citizens trying to form a union from segregated England. To say that it was to give powers to states rather than people is a bit of a stretch. The constitution itself is a limitation on what the government cant do to you.

(Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.)

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1

(Tenth Amendment: reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments

[Zealth]

agrab0ekim

Zealth, you should be more pissed at state constitutions which make it a right than the federal one that leaves it up to the states

No. It should be a right. States are good on that. My problem is that they have also made it a requirement to attend awful schools and limit people's mobility in avoiding those schools which should be shut down. They also limit the ability of those schools to correct their inadequate staff through tenure. I don't care what position you have, tenure is an awful idea.

The federal also makes no attempt to correct that even when it promises to do so. So I can be upset with both.

[agrab0ekim]

Kitsura Kura

agrab0ekim

Kitsura Kura

Thought the preamble holds no actual legal power, I think it represents what the was originally intended for the constitution.

"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."


I believe this alone says that the people have the right to determine what is "general welfare" so privatized health company's outside of the governments influence would be the only ones that have the right to establish a health care system. However the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 over steped its bonds (In my opinion) by implemnting this in there bill

"(2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act (7 U.S.C. 227(b)), from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

Source: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148712.htm

This directly subverted the purpose of the constitution which was to give the power to the people. If congress has simply opened the borders between states for health care prices would have dropped significantly and more people would have coverage /job's from all the branch offices opening up.

But to get back on topic, No i dont not think the constitution supports a Government run health program. However Citizen run Health care is within our rights of the constitution.

The first problem is that general welfare is the security and well being of the nation, not the common term today
The constitution doesnt give power to the people, it gives it to the states. States can have state-wide mandated health care (10th), the people have no consitutional power to have it otherwise

Then the line before General Welfare would be redundant. "Provide for the common Defense." I think you sir think the term Welfare was mutated in the last 100 years, when in fact the word welfare means Health and Prosperity. And not anywhere in that entire statement dose it say "We the representatives of the united states." This was made when there was no "standing government" to speak of, only ordinary citizens trying to form a union from segregated England. To say that it was to give powers to states rather than people is a bit of a stretch. The constitution itself is a limitation on what the government cant do to you.

(Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.)

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1

(Tenth Amendment: reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments

General Welfare:

Quote:

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

While I agree that it gives some power to people, I beleive that it is meant to target people at a state voting level. As everything else is state based, it wouldn't make any sense to give power to the people under that amendment. Furthermore, I would interpret the 9th as the power of the people, which makes placement in the 10th illogical

[agrab0ekim]

Zealth

agrab0ekim

Zealth, you should be more pissed at state constitutions which make it a right than the federal one that leaves it up to the states

No. It should be a right. States are good on that. My problem is that they have also made it a requirement to attend awful schools and limit people's mobility in avoiding those schools which should be shut down. They also limit the ability of those schools to correct their inadequate staff through tenure. I don't care what position you have, tenure is an awful idea.

Tenure is very hard to get at lower levels, and they can still easily be removed. That said, I agree that there should be allowed mobility, but not state paid. Why should I pay for a special school, when one is all that anybody needs?

Quote:

The federal also makes no attempt to correct that even when it promises to do so. So I can be upset with both.

but they have no right to alter or correct