Did WH check Healthcare for Constitutionality? Gibbs: "Not that I know of".

[Dr.Who]

Psst, here's a hint - the Framers don't determine what the Constitution means. The people living under it do. It's "We the People" not "We the guys who met in Philadelphia."

You didn't mean that. I the reader, know what you really meant. And what you really said was words do not have objective meaning and they can mean whatever one wants them to mean and it depends on the meaning of "is".

Just because you frame the health care reform as benefiting some and not others does not make it so. I say not allowing the health care system to collapse so tens of millions lose access to health care which will inevitably hurt the nation in the long run benefits everyone. But hey, I'm opening to defining "benefits."

Even if it were for the benefit of all the gen wel clause still does not grant powers to congress that are not enumerated. congress can't take new powers just because they claim that it benefits all. What congress can do is engage in the powers that they were given for the benefit of all.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Even if it were for the benefit of all the gen wel clause still does not grant powers to congress that are not enumerated. congress can't take new powers just because they claim that it benefits all. What congress can do is engage in the powers that they were given for the benefit of all.

In the first administration Jefferson told Hamilton there could be no Bank of the US because the Constitution did not explicitly enumerate it. Hamilton responded that the Constitution could not be expected to enumerate everything (kind of like our rights in it). As the stories go, Jefferson wasn't even a Framer as he was in France when the Constitution was hammered out, whereas Hamilton was a Framer. So really if we are going to talk about what the Framers intended, why not tell the whole story?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Even if it were for the benefit of all the gen wel clause still does not grant powers to congress that are not enumerated.

Actually, it does. A very few - powers to carry out programs that will equally benefit all. Such programs are very few and far between, but they occasionally turn up. The Framers were more or less divided into two groups: Those who thought the General Welfare clause extended Congress's power to those rare programs, and those who thought it didn't. Alexander Hamilton was in the former group, and James Madison was in the latter.

When the Constitution was written, there were two kinds of "welfare" recognized: "General welfare", which meant the well-being and prosperity of all Americans equally, and "local welfare", which meant well-being and prosperity of isolated groups or individuals over others.

The Framers had long arguments over what the "Welfare Clause" they had just included into the Constitution, meant. They had written the Constitution with the idea that it created the Fed govt, and assigned it its powers; and that the Fed had only the powers it listed and no others. Some said that the "Welfare Clause" meant Congress could spend money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if those programs weren't specifically named elsewhere in the Constitution. As such, the "Welfare Clause" slightly expanded the power of the Fed govt beyond the powers specifically listed. Others said that the "Welfare Clause" did NOT add any powers beyond those already listed.

But if it didn't add those powers, then what was the point of including it in the Constitution at all?

But neither group of Framers, said that it added the power to run programs that benefitted only some Americans (such as Health care). They all agreed that it did not. 150 years later, the Supreme Court decided that the former group was correct: the Welfare Clause gave Congress the power to spend tax money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if they weren't specifically listed in the Constitution... but not programs that benefitted only certain groups.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs is starting to run out of answers as more and more people question whether mandatory government Health Care is Constitutional.

Yeah....you "conservatives" have long-been-known as Constitutional-scholars...

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Actually, it does. A very few - powers to carry out programs that will equally benefit all. Such programs are very few and far between, but they occasionally turn up. The Framers were more or less divided into two groups: Those who thought the General Welfare clause extended Congress's power to those rare programs, and those who thought it didn't. Alexander Hamilton was in the former group, and James Madison was in the latter.

When the Constitution was written, there were two kinds of "welfare" recognized: "General welfare", which meant the well-being and prosperity of all Americans equally, and "local welfare", which meant well-being and prosperity of isolated groups or individuals over others.

The Framers had long arguments over what the "Welfare Clause" they had just included into the Constitution, meant. They had written the Constitution with the idea that it created the Fed govt, and assigned it its powers; and that the Fed had only the powers it listed and no others. Some said that the "Welfare Clause" meant Congress could spend money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if those programs weren't specifically named elsewhere in the Constitution. As such, the "Welfare Clause" slightly expanded the power of the Fed govt beyond the powers specifically listed. Others said that the "Welfare Clause" did NOT add any powers beyond those already listed.

But if it didn't add those powers, then what was the point of including it in the Constitution at all?

But neither group of Framers, said that it added the power to run programs that benefitted only some Americans (such as Health care). They all agreed that it did not. 150 years later, the Supreme Court decided that the former group was correct: the Welfare Clause gave Congress the power to spend tax money on programs that benefitted all Americans equally, even if they weren't specifically listed in the Constitution... but not programs that benefitted only certain groups.

You still don't get it.

The people living under the Constitution determine its meaning.

I can forgive you for thinking the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, but if you believed your own press you wouldn't bring them up.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I can forgive you for thinking the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution

You seem to have a habit of telling me I believe things I don't.

If you start getting your facts straight, you'll have more success persuading people of your arguments.

 

[Dr.Who]

In the first administration Jefferson told Hamilton there could be no Bank of the US because the Constitution did not explicitly enumerate it. Hamilton responded that the Constitution could not be expected to enumerate everything (kind of like our rights in it). As the stories go, Jefferson wasn't even a Framer as he was in France when the Constitution was hammered out, whereas Hamilton was a Framer. So really if we are going to talk about what the Framers intended, why not tell the whole story?

Even from afar the work jefferson had already done in shaping this nation was more of an influence that that of Hamilton who was a two bit player at the convention.

But why debate those two when Madison is the father of the Constitution?

And what did Madison say?

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

and

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)"

Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

You seem to have a habit of telling me I believe things I don't.

If you start getting your facts straight, you'll have more success persuading people of your arguments.

Then why bring up the Supreme Court in your appeal to authority?

I find it the height of irony that someone who would talk about having to abide by what is in the Constitution then appealling to the authority of a branch of government's who swelled power does not come from what is in the Constitution.

Again, why bring them up if not to appeal to their unconstitutional authority?

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Even from afar the work jefferson had already done in shaping this nation was more of an influence that that of Hamilton who was a two bit player at the convention.

But why debate those two when Madison is the father of the Constitution?

And what did Madison say?

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

and

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)"

Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means.

As I have stated before, it doesn't matter what Madison thought alone, because the people define what their Constitution means.

It's funny that you besmirch Hamilton when it was he who thought up the economic system that got America on its feet that included the "unconstitutional" bank, which neither Jefferson nor Madison had a response to. The very man who chaired the Constitutional Convention signed off on it. Is Washington a two bit player, as well? As President, he certainly had a say in what was constitutional. Did he not understand what he was signing on to?

And speaking of Jefferson's "influence", did he or did he not write that the just powers of the government come from the consent of the governed?

The Constitution is a set of words that finds its meaning in the people that live under it. Do not sit there and tell us on the one hand that we are to be influenced by the man who told us our government gets its power from our consent, then on the other tell us we are chained to the opinion of one man making our right to consent meaningless.

 

[Dr.Who]

As I have stated before, it doesn't matter what Madison thought alone, because the people define what their Constitution means.

It's funny that you besmirch Hamilton when it was he who thought up the economic system that got America on its feet that included the "unconstitutional" bank, which neither Jefferson nor Madison had a response to. The very man who chaired the Constitutional Convention signed off on it. Is Washington a two bit player, as well? As President, he certainly had a say in what was constitutional. Did he not understand what he was signing on to?

And speaking of Jefferson's "influence", did he or did he not write that the just powers of the government come from the consent of the governed?

The Constitution is a set of words that finds its meaning in the people that live under it. Do not sit there and tell us on the one hand that we are to be influenced by the man who told us our government gets its power from our consent, then on the other tell us we are chained to the opinion of one man making our right to consent meaningless.

The meaning of the words in the constitution is fixed in time and a new generation of people cannot just decide that for them they want it to mean something else. What they can do is make amendments.

I really don't see how the later actions of Hamilton effect at all that during the convention he was not an important player.

Was Washington a bit player? Let me look that up and find out. Because I can't just decide what I want it to be I have to look for the truth. I can no more change history than I can change the meaning of the words in the Constitution. Words are static and even if the meanings change over time there once was a meaning that was intended by the authors.

Tentatively what I found was that during the convention people considered him to be an influential man but he made no speeches and therefore despite his influence he did not exercise it. He had only a small role in making the Constitution. Later though "He made up the Bill Of Rights which are the first ten amendments of the Constitution. He fixed the weaknesses of the Articles Of Confederation. He contributed to making the Virginia Plan and three-fifths compromise."

I did not spend any time confirming that.

The people do not define what the constitution means but the supreme court does interpret what the founders meant.

 

[Dr.Who]

Then why bring up the Supreme Court in your appeal to authority?

I find it the height of irony that someone who would talk about having to abide by what is in the Constitution then appealling to the authority of a branch of government's who swelled power does not come from what is in the Constitution.

Again, why bring them up if not to appeal to their unconstitutional authority?

The constitution is indeed the authority we live under (though the Declaration would say that even the Constitution defers to God). The court helps us to know what was meant when it was written.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

The meaning of the words in the constitution is fixed in time and a new generation of people cannot just decide that for them they want it to mean something else. What they can do is make amendments.

I really don't see how the later actions of Hamilton effect at all that during the convention he was not an important player.

Was Washington a bit player? Let me look that up and find out. Because I can't just decide what I want it to be I have to look for the truth. I can no more change history than I can change the meaning of the words in the Constitution. Words are static and even if the meanings change over time there once was a meaning that was intended by the authors.

Tentatively what I found was that during the convention people considered him to be an influential man but he made no speeches and therefore despite his influence he did not exercise it. He had only a small role in making the Constitution. Later though "He made up the Bill Of Rights which are the first ten amendments of the Constitution. He fixed the weaknesses of the Articles Of Confederation. He contributed to making the Virginia Plan and three-fifths compromise."

I did not spend any time confirming that.

The people do not define what the constitution means but the supreme court does interpret what the founders meant.

If the meaning of the words in the Constitution are so clear, then how could there be such a difference of opinion about it in the first administration? That's because the Constitution had ambiguity written into it. The people fill in blanks of that ambiguity. It doesn't matter what you think. It matters what we the people think. We can't require a religious test for office because that is explicitly forbidden. To change that we would need a Constitutional amendment. If the people consent to a national health care scheme, why can they not say it is for our general welfare. Who are you to say they are wrong? Because of a quote from Madison? I missed where Madison was the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Could you point out in the Constitution where that is written?

I don't really care about this game of trying to minimize Hamilton because his contribution at the Convention. He most certainly could not have been that feckless as the Father of the Constitution teamed up with him to persuade New York to ratify the Constitution. He most certainly significantly defined its implementation.

And speaking of the Federalist Papers, it is clear that all branches of government were to determine the meaning of the Constitution. The complaint by Anti-Federalists were that Supreme Justices were appointed for life so they could rule without concern for the public. Hamilton's response was that the Supreme Court's rulings would only have power if one of the other branches of the government decided to support them. Judicial Supremacy does not exist in the Constitution.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

The constitution is indeed the authority we live under (though the Declaration would say that even the Constitution defers to God). The court helps us to know what was meant when it was written.

To reiterate, The Court is not the sole arbiter of meaning. It was not meant to be.

 

[Dr.Who]

To reiterate, The Court is not the sole arbiter of meaning. It was not meant to be.

Oh well since you reiterated you must be right. I concede, I give up. You win, you're right, I'm wrong.