Trump Healthcare Vote Withdrawn

a reply to: SBMcG

Are you arguing that based upon the 9th Amendment an individual can claim a right to government-funded healthcare?

Not really. They could claim it, certainly. Whether or not it would result in anything is another matter.

There is NO RIGHT to government-paid healthcare

That doesn't mean that Congress can't write a law which provides it.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: SBMcG

Did you not understand what I wrote? It certainly looks that way.

To explain in a different way there are very few rights granted by the constitution such as the right to bear arms, vote, speedy trial. There may be a few more, but for the most part the constitution sets limits on what the government can do. If you can't show where it says they can not provide healthcare then you don't have an argument.

Edit: The right to bear arms isn't granted honestly because it is written in a way that it already exists. The second states that right shall not be infringed.

The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes the inalienable rights that people have, and tasks the federal government to protect them.

The Constitution also spells out what powers the Federal Government actually has, and the 9th and 10th Amendment go one step further and say that any remaining powers are left to the People and the States.

Fun fact: there was a time when the People and States were smart enough to recognize that the Federal Government could grow powerful enough to think that it was all-powerful, so they demanded the Bill Of Rights (including 9 and 10) before they would ratify the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: SBMcG

Did you not understand what I wrote? It certainly looks that way.

To explain in a different way there are very few rights granted by the constitution such as the right to bear arms, vote, speedy trial. There may be a few more, but for the most part the constitution sets limits on what the government can do. If you can't show where it says they can not provide healthcare then you don't have an argument.

Edit: The right to bear arms isn't granted honestly because it is written in a way that it already exists. The second states that right shall not be infringed.

I can't show where in the Constitution it says I'm not due a nice new Escalade at government expense either.

I guess that means that YOU don't have an argument.

Not only do you not have an argument you don't seem to be able to comprehend the document you are referencing.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes the inalienable rights that people have, and tasks the federal government to protect them.

What rights does the constitution task the government to protect? Serious question because I really want to see that quote.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

Are you arguing that based upon the 9th Amendment an individual can claim a right to government-funded healthcare?

Not really. They could claim it, certainly. Whether or not it would result in anything is another matter.

There is NO RIGHT to government-paid healthcare

That doesn't mean that Congress can't write a law which provides it.

There exists no legal precedent of anyone in US history claiming a "right" under the 9th Amendment that required the outlay of Federal funds being successful in that petition.

Congress passed a healthcare law that was structured as a tax. Obamacare. That was perfectly fine, as the Supreme Court correctly ruled IMHO.

There was a Constitutional reason that law was passed as a tax rather than an entitlement.

a reply to: SBMcG

There was a Constitutional reason that law was passed as a tax rather than an entitlement.

Sort of. SCOTUS ruled that the mandate part constituted a tax and was thus allowable.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes the inalienable rights that people have, and tasks the federal government to protect them.

What rights does the constitution task the government to protect? Serious question because I really want to see that quote.

The answer to that question would be lengthy and complex, but I can assure you as someone who has studied the Constitution and Original Intent of the Framers thereof for 30 years, the "right" to government-paid healthcare is not one of them.

Constitutional Rights

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes the inalienable rights that people have, and tasks the federal government to protect them.

What rights does the constitution task the government to protect? Serious question because I really want to see that quote.

The answer to that question would be lengthy and complex, but I can assure you as someone who has studied the Constitution and Original Intent of the Framers thereof for 30 years, the "right" to government-paid healthcare is not one of them.

Constitutional Rights

Nice cop out

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes the inalienable rights that people have, and tasks the federal government to protect them.

What rights does the constitution task the government to protect? Serious question because I really want to see that quote.

You are looking for ver batim quotes. Stop it. Count to 10.

1) The Constitution says that people have inalienable rights.
2) The Constitution says that the government may not infringe on the People's rights.
3) The Constitution lists and restricts powers of the federal government.
4) The Constitution states that all powers not given to the Federal Government belong to the People and States.
5) The Constitution places the responsibility of defending the People and States to the Federal Government.

Ergo, the Constitution tasks the Federal Government to protect the People and by extension the rights inherent to the citizens.

It's not rocket science.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

There was a Constitutional reason that law was passed as a tax rather than an entitlement.

Sort of. SCOTUS ruled that the mandate part constituted a tax and was thus allowable.

Yep. It started out as a penalty and the SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional. Instead of scrapping the law, they rewrote it.

1) That's not legal, but when did that stop judicial activism?
2) The ACA did not have a severability clause, so striking down any part of it should have struck down the entire thing... but then you have judicial activism.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes the inalienable rights that people have, and tasks the federal government to protect them.

What rights does the constitution task the government to protect? Serious question because I really want to see that quote.

You are looking for ver batim quotes. Stop it. Count to 10.

1) The Constitution says that people have inalienable rights.
2) The Constitution says that the government may not infringe on the People's rights.
3) The Constitution lists and restricts powers of the federal government.
4) The Constitution states that all powers not given to the Federal Government belong to the People and States.
5) The Constitution places the responsibility of defending the People and States to the Federal Government.

Ergo, the Constitution tasks the Federal Government to protect the People and by extension the rights inherent to the citizens.

It's not rocket science.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness would pretty much cover healthcare.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Well, I have to disagree with your "Ergo". That is your interpretation. Even though I can see how you arrived at that conclusion I think you are wrong. Honestly, you are taking a huge leap in logic.

That's neither here nor there. I was just curious about if you were referencing something I missed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

There was a Constitutional reason that law was passed as a tax rather than an entitlement.

Sort of. SCOTUS ruled that the mandate part constituted a tax and was thus allowable.

Not "sort of". Obamacare was ruled Constitutional because of the mandate -- a tax in lieu of XYZ...

Take that mandate (tax) out of the equation and it is simply unconstitutional to force someone to buy something they don't want.

That's the true fraud and ultimate insult of Obama and the Obamacare scam.

Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service and, as this paper will explain, no decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power.

Obamacare and the Constitution

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes the inalienable rights that people have, and tasks the federal government to protect them.

What rights does the constitution task the government to protect? Serious question because I really want to see that quote.

The answer to that question would be lengthy and complex, but I can assure you as someone who has studied the Constitution and Original Intent of the Framers thereof for 30 years, the "right" to government-paid healthcare is not one of them.

Constitutional Rights

Nice cop out

No cop-out at all. If you want me to copy-and-paste the text in the link I sent you which is a verbatim rendition of the Bill of Rights I will, but the mod's will get pissed.

Can't wait to see his salty twitter rampage blaming everyone but himself again.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

2) The ACA did not have a severability clause, so striking down any part of it should have struck down the entire thing... but then you have judicial activism.

Such a great point.

Folks not well-versed in legalese and the Constitution are not going to get that so I rarely bring it up, but that is the fatal flaw of Obamacare.

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Can't wait to see his salty twitter rampage blaming everyone but himself again.

So should Obamacare remain in place as written?

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Can't wait to see his salty twitter rampage blaming everyone but himself again.

So should Obamacare remain in place as written?

Nope. It needs amending. I don't think that's ever been debated by anyone rational. But rushing through a poorly thought out plan to score political points was a ridiculous idea.

- America paying for the wall
- Hillary not arrested
- Travel ban attempts a complete joke laden with hypocrisy
- Golfing at his private retreat at great cost to the tax payer every weekend
- Declaring all negative polls as fake news
- Healthcare plans rejected by his own side

So far he's achieving absolutely nothing but further division. He's utterly useless.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

With a Republican controlled govt how could the Dem's do anything? Obama had to resort to EO's and of course the Repub's attacked him for it while bragging they'll never work with him on anything, you know stone wall him. And hypocrisy reigns again on conservative land when they allow Trump to fire off EO's left and right which is ironic because he doesn't even have to.

That said, screw the Dem's because they are one weak party who never fight back, much.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Maybe even triggered

Single payer need to happen.