8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution

[SmarterthanYou]

Surely the Federal Government has the power to protect the citizens.

surely it does not. it's only power is to protect the rights of its citizens. are you sure you've read our constitution?

 

[apple0154]

The mortality rate was much higher then than now, and the founding fathers didn't see fit to include health care in the enumeration of power the government held. It doesn't make any sense that you don't understand it's just not in the fucking Constitution, there was never any such provision made, and the founding fathers didn't think it was the responsibility of government.

I also mentioned before, over 100,000 people die every year from smoking... that's TWICE the number you are outraged over, and yet... government generates revenue from taxation of tobacco, and smoking is perfectly legal. Why would the government have some responsibility to "save" 45k but no such obligation to "save" 100k people? That's what doesn't make sense... but then, look who we're talking to?

What doesn't make sense is your lack of comprehension. There is a difference between helping and interferring. Helping people by providing health care is not the same as prohibiting them from smoking.

As for, "The mortality rate was much higher then than now, and the founding fathers didn't see fit to include health care in the enumeration of power the government held", there was no health care. What could they have inncluded? If the founding fathers were aware of a pill that could increase a person's life by 20 or more years and cost the equivalent of 50 cents today do you honestly believe they would have said, "Let the people die"?

 

[apple0154]

surely it does not. it's only power is to protect the rights of its citizens. are you sure you've read our constitution?

Yes, I have. The government has the power to form armies, have a navy, protect citizen's rights but when it comes to being able to keep them alive you're saying the government doesn't have that right? Take a moment to think about that. Think about the absurdity. Why would the government take on the obligation of protecting the citizens but do nothing when it could prevent 45,000 needless deaths? Do you have any idea how crazy you sound? That's a rhetorical question. Obviously, you don't.

 

[apple0154]

health care wasn't contemplated because it didn't need to be. when one needed to see a doctor, one went or one came to visit. If payment in currency couldn't be made, then barter was completely acceptable and often preferred. your precious government has all but done away with most barter payments. the federal government doesn't have rights, period. It only has powers we the people assigned to it. no more, no less.

And the powers assigned to it was to protect the citizens. To assert the government has no power to try and prevent the unnecessary deaths of 45,000 citizens every year is lunacy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And the powers assigned to it was to protect the citizens. To assert the government has no power to try and prevent the unnecessary deaths of 45,000 citizens every year is lunacy.

100,000 people die from smoking each year, and the government makes millions from it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm saying health care was no more comtemplated than NASA or Mars missions. Common sense says if the Federal Government was mandated to form armies and the navy and raise taxes to protect the citizens and 45,000 citizens are needlessly dying every year surely the Federal Government has a right to act.

You keep throwing out that figure of 45,000 likes it gospel and can you say for absolute certain that everyone of those 45,000 wouldn't have died, if there was a Government Health Care; because otherwise you need to start dealing with reality and begin using some numbers that are factual, instead of using them just because it feels good.

 

[Airstrip One]

So then how do you deal with this language directly from the constitution?

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The founders said we have rights not enumerated. Matter of fact, if not for the 9th Amendment, the constitution likely would not have passed. Many of the founders were afraid of people such as you. Those who would say that since the right was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution it did not exist.

Uh, the Constitution passed without the 9th, as well as the 10th, and 1 through 8 as well...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Uh, the Constitution passed without the 9th, as well as the 10th, and 1 through 8 as well...

This is because there had to be a Constitution in order to amend it. The first 10 amendments were written before the Constitution was ratified, as a matter of fact, there were 12 amendments, one failed and would later become the 27th amendment, the other is still pending. Now, why would they write amendments to a Constitution that hadn't even been ratified? Because almost immediately, they found things that required amendment, and without them, the Constitution would likely have failed ratification. USF is correct, regardless of your lack of understanding on the Bill of Rights.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes, I have. The government has the power to form armies, have a navy, protect citizen's rights but when it comes to being able to keep them alive you're saying the government doesn't have that right? Take a moment to think about that. Think about the absurdity. Why would the government take on the obligation of protecting the citizens but do nothing when it could prevent 45,000 needless deaths? Do you have any idea how crazy you sound? That's a rhetorical question. Obviously, you don't.

you should familiarize yourself with some cases we've had over the years.

Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department

Freeman v. Ferguson

in every single one of these cases, the government was released from any liability for failure to protect it's citizens.

I repeat, there is no constitutional power or authority to the government to protect citizens.

 

[apple0154]

You keep throwing out that figure of 45,000 likes it gospel and can you say for absolute certain that everyone of those 45,000 wouldn't have died, if there was a Government Health Care; because otherwise you need to start dealing with reality and begin using some numbers that are factual, instead of using them just because it feels good.

(Excerpt) Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and many other factors, including smoking, drinking, and obesity. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
(End) http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

An annual check-up. Medication costing 50 cents a day can prevent death from hypertension. One is expected, if necessary, to fight and die for their country but their lives aren't worth 50 cents a day to the government?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

(Excerpt) Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

And only half the number of people who die from cigarette smoking each year.

An annual check-up. Medication costing 50 cents a day can prevent death from hypertension. One is expected, if necessary, to fight and die for their country but their lives aren't worth 50 cents a day to the government?

Not smoking cigarettes is free, it doesn't cost anyone a penny. The cost of caring for people who smoked and got lung disease, is much more than 50 cents per day, billions of dollars could be saved each year, both in health care costs, and in the actual cost of smoking to the individual. Yet the government hasn't bothered to do anything about smoking... except to tax it. Obviously the government doesn't care about people.

Now, apple, this topic of conversation has gone on and on for the better part of the last 6 years with you, and you have more than stated your opinion, repeatedly... and you still have about the same percentage of people who just don't agree with you on this, you aren't changing minds. You've been shown where the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate health care insurance, or provide health care services to everyone, yet you continue to insist that government must do this. Aside from the fact that it's financially impossible to provide free health care to everyone for everything, aside from the fact that insurance companies can't insure everyone for everything, there is the fact that government simply does not have the power to do this. What will it take to get you to understand, ObamaCare will not stand, and can not stand?

 

[apple0154]

you should familiarize yourself with some cases we've had over the years.

Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department

Freeman v. Ferguson

in every single one of these cases, the government was released from any liability for failure to protect it's citizens.

I repeat, there is no constitutional power or authority to the government to protect citizens.

You're confusing an "obligation" with a "right". The government has the right to try and protect citizens. That doesn't mean it has the obligation. The government has the right to levy taxes. That doesn't mean it has the obligation to do so.

The Preamble makes clear the purpose of the Constitution. "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"

Does ensuring every citizen has access to a doctor and medication go against the Blessings of Liberty? Does wanting to keep the citizens alive go against the general welfare?

What was the purpose of the war for independence and the constitution; to pave the way for a better life but not help ensure that people lived? To offer freedom and blessings but not give a damn if the people died? To spend outrageous sums of money to protect the citizens against enemies, both foreign and domestic, but ignore something that costs 50 cents a day that has the potential to increase ones life by 20 or more years?

How can anyone believe the founding fathers strived for a better way of life but didn't give a damn about life itself? How can anyone interpret the Constitution in such a bizarre manner?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're confusing an "obligation" with a "right". The government has the right to try and protect citizens. That doesn't mean it has the obligation. The government has the right to levy taxes. That doesn't mean it has the obligation to do so.

and you seem to be confusing rights with powers. the government, any government in the USA, has no 'rights'. they have powers assigned to them, not one of them details protecting the lives of it's citizens.

The Preamble makes clear the purpose of the Constitution. "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"

your tortured interpretation of the preamble and 'general welfare' clause is still wrong.

What was the purpose of the war for independence and the constitution; to pave the way for a better life but not help ensure that people lived? To offer freedom and blessings but not give a damn if the people died? To spend outrageous sums of money to protect the citizens against enemies, both foreign and domestic, but ignore something that costs 50 cents a day that has the potential to increase ones life by 20 or more years?

for someone who promotes themselves as some 'expert' on the constitution, you seem to be lacking historical knowledge. The war for independence was to throw off a central government that continually oppressed and abused them by claiming some 'right' to control every aspect of their lives.......for their own good, of course.

How can anyone believe the founding fathers strived for a better way of life but didn't give a damn about life itself? How can anyone interpret the Constitution in such a bizarre manner?

nobody is interpreting it in that way. you are the one making that ridiculous accusation with no evidence or basis of fact other than your own hyperbolic emotions.

 

[apple0154]

And only half the number of people who die from cigarette smoking each year.



Not smoking cigarettes is free, it doesn't cost anyone a penny. The cost of caring for people who smoked and got lung disease, is much more than 50 cents per day, billions of dollars could be saved each year, both in health care costs, and in the actual cost of smoking to the individual. Yet the government hasn't bothered to do anything about smoking... except to tax it. Obviously the government doesn't care about people.

Now, apple, this topic of conversation has gone on and on for the better part of the last 6 years with you, and you have more than stated your opinion, repeatedly... and you still have about the same percentage of people who just don't agree with you on this, you aren't changing minds. You've been shown where the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate health care insurance, or provide health care services to everyone, yet you continue to insist that government must do this. Aside from the fact that it's financially impossible to provide free health care to everyone for everything, aside from the fact that insurance companies can't insure everyone for everything, there is the fact that government simply does not have the power to do this. What will it take to get you to understand, ObamaCare will not stand, and can not stand?

I have a dental appointment. I'll be back later.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're confusing an "obligation" with a "right". The government has the right to try and protect citizens. That doesn't mean it has the obligation. The government has the right to levy taxes. That doesn't mean it has the obligation to do so.

False. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted a RIGHT! The government is authorized certain powers, on behalf of the people, and those powers are enumerated.

The Preamble makes clear the purpose of the Constitution. "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"

That doesn't make ANYTHING clear! What is "promote" ....how far does "promote" go? What is general welfare? To what extent can something be considered general welfare? What are blessings? As you see, there is absolutely NOTHING made clear in the Preamble, it is a general statement that can mean any number of things. Is THIS what you believe the founding fathers intended? To have a Constitution that anyone could interpret to mean anything they pleased at any given time? If so, what is the point in having it?

Does ensuring every citizen has access to a doctor and medication go against the Blessings of Liberty? Does wanting to keep the citizens alive go against the general welfare?

No, they go against Article 1 Section 8, which outlines exactly what "general welfare" is, as well as common defense and the blessings of liberty. What Article 1 Section 8 is missing, is any reference to government-run health care, or individual mandates to purchase insurance.

What was the purpose of the war for independence and the constitution;

Precisely to STOP from happening, EXACTLY what you seek to happen now! To END government tyranny over our lives, so that we can live free from unnecessary government intrusions, like forcing us to purchase health care insurance, or forcing us to pay for the health care of others. If you want to provide health care to people, you are free to spend your own money and do that! You do not have the authority to go into MY wallet and spend MY money, and you can't use the government as your heavy.

 

[The Dude]

Hillarious, the insurance industry loves Obuma. Now how about Obuma mandate gasoline purchases.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Article 1 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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.

....................I don't see HEALTH CARE listed there, do you????

According to valid Supreme Court precedent, McCullough v. Maryland, link---(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland) the Necessary and Proper Clause allows the government to pass laws that do not fall within the expressed powers so long as they are necessary and proper in order to execute the expressed powers. The Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to regulate the health insurance industry and, therefore, the authority to protect citizens, via regulation, from the discriminatory practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. In order to deal with the very real issue of people, then, only purchasing insurance when they are sick, the mandate is put in place... this is a rational means to assist in achieving a legitimate end. The fact that the Federal Government does not have the expressed power to require an individual to engage in a commercial transaction with a private company is not the point. It does have the authority, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to do so in order to execute it's legitimate protection of individuals from discriminatory practices by insurance companies.

I would also like to draw your attention to the following

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...dicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

"In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind."

 

[apple0154]

And only half the number of people who die from cigarette smoking each year.



Not smoking cigarettes is free, it doesn't cost anyone a penny. The cost of caring for people who smoked and got lung disease, is much more than 50 cents per day, billions of dollars could be saved each year, both in health care costs, and in the actual cost of smoking to the individual. Yet the government hasn't bothered to do anything about smoking... except to tax it. Obviously the government doesn't care about people.

Now, apple, this topic of conversation has gone on and on for the better part of the last 6 years with you, and you have more than stated your opinion, repeatedly... and you still have about the same percentage of people who just don't agree with you on this, you aren't changing minds. You've been shown where the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate health care insurance, or provide health care services to everyone, yet you continue to insist that government must do this. Aside from the fact that it's financially impossible to provide free health care to everyone for everything, aside from the fact that insurance companies can't insure everyone for everything, there is the fact that government simply does not have the power to do this. What will it take to get you to understand, ObamaCare will not stand, and can not stand?

Have you noticed the restrictions on smoking? There was time when people could smoke in hospital rooms! Do you expect the government would ban cigarettes when millions of people are addicted? While the government may not outright ban cigarettes they will continue to limit the places where smoling is permitted and raise taxes until people stop. If the local governments (States) do that them there's no reason for the Feds to get involved.

As for government medical being financially impossible that's nonsense. There is every type of country that has implemented government medical.

Perhaps we should leave it here until Obama gets re-elected and take up the conversation then. Sound reasonable?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

(Excerpt) Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.

The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.

“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

The study, which analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and many other factors, including smoking, drinking, and obesity. It estimated that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually.
(End) http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

An annual check-up. Medication costing 50 cents a day can prevent death from hypertension. One is expected, if necessary, to fight and die for their country but their lives aren't worth 50 cents a day to the government?

And of course this takes into account those people who refuse to seek health care, those who refuse to take their medication, etc?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Have you noticed the restrictions on smoking? There was time when people could smoke in hospital rooms! Do you expect the government would ban cigarettes when millions of people are addicted? While the government may not outright ban cigarettes they will continue to limit the places where smoling is permitted and raise taxes until people stop. If the local governments (States) do that them there's no reason for the Feds to get involved.

As for government medical being financially impossible that's nonsense. There is every type of country that has implemented government medical.

Perhaps we should leave it here until Obama gets re-elected and take up the conversation then. Sound reasonable?

Still, hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year, more than TWICE the number you are whining about, and the government does NOTHING to stop it. All they would have to do is outlaw tobacco products. Does the government not care that hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year from something they get money from taxing? Don't they have the same obligation you claimed they had with the 45k? Don't they want to save lives? Seems to me, the general welfare of the people isn't being served when hundreds of thousands are dying of something, and they won't do what they can to prevent it. You see, dimwit, it's your same exact argument, just applied to cigarettes....and it doesn't fly, even when the number is exponentially more, in terms of deaths.

Here's another one... how many millions of people die or ruin their lives with alcoholism? Shouldn't the government care enough about saving lives to do something about that? Why don't they ban alcohol? Oh yeah, they tried to save us from ourselves once before on that, how did it work out?