Skip to main content

View Diary: A Layman's* Refutation of the Tenther Movement (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So.... (0+ / 0-)

    are you saying Medicare isn't Constitutional?

    There's a voice in my head that says to not be so mean to the conservatives. I work very hard to ignore that voice.

    by djtyg on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:17:20 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. I am. (0+ / 0-)

      Regardless of its merits, social value or any other justification, it is unconstitutional.

      People used to amend the Constitution when they wanted to create new programs which were not part of the ennumerated powers.  That's how we got the 16th and 18th amendments.

      But since the '30, politicians have found it easier to just shove entire new departments into phrases like "necassary and proper", "promote the general welfare" and "interstate commerce".  It is a violation of the text and ignores the intent of the Founders, both Federalist and Anti-Federalist.

      Results count for more than intentions do.

      by VA Classical Liberal on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:26:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then You're Wrong. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elmo, Rogneid, IreGyre, sullivanst

        McCulloch v. Maryland took place in 1819, not the 1930's.  And one of our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton said:

        [A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so.... is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality...

        If I still had TU status, I'd be using some HR's right about now.  Go back to RedState with your idiocy.

        There's a voice in my head that says to not be so mean to the conservatives. I work very hard to ignore that voice.

        by djtyg on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:30:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Being flat-out wrong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          djtyg, Rogneid

          isn't hide-worthy, given it's politely and facially reasonably presented.

          But it's very clear that VACL's flat-out wrong here.

          In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

          by sullivanst on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:33:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hamilton's was the minority view. (0+ / 0-)

          The majority sided with Madison's narrower reading of general welfare.  That any action taken by Congress must both "promote the gereral welfare" and be tied to one of the ennumerated powers.

          If I still had TU status, I'd be using some HR's right about now.  Go back to RedState with your idiocy.

          Hopefully you'll learn what the doughnuts are for before you get TU back.

          Results count for more than intentions do.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:06:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Medicare CLEARLY promotes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        djtyg, dotalbon, IreGyre

        the general welfare.

        What else could welfare possibly mean?

        In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

        by sullivanst on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:31:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "General Welfare" has a specific meaning here. (0+ / 0-)

          "General Welfare" was a term of art meaning that the action had to improve life for all Americans.  The General Welfare clause, at least in the narrow Madisonian view which I obviously favor, would forbid a program like Medicare because it benefits retirees at the expense of the younger workers.

          You could argue that Medicare does benefit all, just over different time periods.  Younger workers get their turn later on.  I think that's a shaky argument.

          Results count for more than intentions do.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:12:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hamilton clearly disagreed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            djtyg

            And not only that, but Congress more or less immediately started passing bills that could only be justified under Hamilton's wider reading.

            For example, under Washington, the 2nd Congress passed a subsidy for dried fish exports. Under Jefferson, the 9th Congress passed a road-building bill.

            Now, you can't seriously be suggesting to me that exports of dried fish directly benefit every single American. Therefore, your supposed originalist interpretation has not been followed since the days of Washington. It was clearly not the practice of the founding fathers.

            In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

            by sullivanst on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 03:36:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (152)
  • Community (77)
  • Bernie Sanders (50)
  • Elections (45)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Climate Change (35)
  • Environment (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Culture (32)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Science (29)
  • Republicans (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Law (23)
  • Spam (22)
  • Education (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • Congress (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site