Obama: gay partners should have hospital access

Southern Man said:
:lol: Do I need to school you on this non-existent "general welfare" clause again? :lol:
Click to expand...

I suggest you obtain some schooling yourself. When anyone speaks of general welfare the first thing that comes to mind is a person's health, not whether they're making money and saving taxes.
 
Southern Man said:
:lol: Do I need to school you on this non-existent "general welfare" clause again? :lol:
Click to expand...

SM, do you believe that a hospital, which receives tax dollars in order to operate, should be able to discriminate at will?
 
Southern Man said:
:lol: Do I need to school you on this non-existent "general welfare" clause again? :lol:
Click to expand...

"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."
 
apple0154 said:
I suggest you obtain some schooling yourself. When anyone speaks of general welfare the first thing that comes to mind is a person's health, not whether they're making money and saving taxes.
Click to expand...
Do I need to quote The Father of the Constitution yet again? :)
 
Southern Man said:
Do I need to quote The Father of the Constitution yet again? :)
Click to expand...

Rather then quote him you need to understand what was written in the Preamble. Do you know the purpose of the Preamble?

Try and understand this. "The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation)."

"fundamental purposes and guiding principles" Not some southern boy's interpretation.

"courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions". Again, it wasn't left up to a some southern dude to interpret it.

That is followed by, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] 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."

"General welfare." A person's welfare is their health, first and foremost.
 
Southern Man said:
Again Yurt, The government, especially the federal government, shouldn't be involved in decisions made by hospitals and their staff.
Click to expand...

it already is by having laws that allow only family members certain rights and not homosexual partners

this means, you believe that the government should not have laws that only certain people can make certain decisions, great, then the government has no business telling homosexuals they can't marry

congrats
 
Yurt said:
it already is by having laws that allow only family members certain rights and not homosexual partners

this means, you believe that the government should not have laws that only certain people can make certain decisions, great, then the government has no business telling homosexuals they can't marry

congrats
Click to expand...

The government's role in to set certain standards. A foot is a foot, a gallon a gallon and a marriage between one woman and one man.

The government shouldn't set hospital policy, and that's what your ax'ing it to do.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's also a chemical term for one mole equivalent in solution. Be that as it may your avoiding the question. What is "normal" behavior in humans. If you wish, define that mathematically.
Click to expand...
Normal behavior is what most do. Statistically, it's within the fat part of the bell curve. Most agree that its within 2 standard deviations.
 
apple0154 said:
Rather then quote him you need to understand what was written in the Preamble. Do you know the purpose of the Preamble?

Try and understand this. "The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of Confederation)."

"fundamental purposes and guiding principles" Not some southern boy's interpretation.

"courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions". Again, it wasn't left up to a some southern dude to interpret it.

That is followed by, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] 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."

"General welfare." A person's welfare is their health, first and foremost.
Click to expand...
LOL Again you cite wikipedia for the Founder's intent, and I cite The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 41, and he directly opposes your liberal intepretation:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
Click to expand...
 
Southern Man said:
The government's role in to set certain standards. A foot is a foot, a gallon a gallon and a marriage between one woman and one man.

The government shouldn't set hospital policy, and that's what your ax'ing it to do.
Click to expand...

as i said....it already does by creating laws on who can have access adn rights
 
Southern Man said:
LOL Again you cite wikipedia for the Founder's intent, and I cite The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 41, and he directly opposes your liberal intepretation:
Click to expand...

It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
Click to expand...

Again, I ask, what "welfare" is more important than the health of the citizens?

Madison specifically states, "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury."

Biological warfare is a reality today. It wasn't even imagined in Madison's time, however, he clearly states "the common defense or general welfare".

How can one separate the health of the citizens from their general welfare or the general welfare of the country? How can one possibly separate the health of the citizens from the government's ability to defend the country?

Although the causes and treatments of diseases were generally unknown at the time Madison made it clear the general welfare and common defense was a priority and a healthy population is vital for the protection of a country.

Is that so difficult to understand?
 
apple0154 said:
Again, I ask, what "welfare" is more important than the health of the citizens?

Madison specifically states, "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury."

Biological warfare is a reality today. It wasn't even imagined in Madison's time, however, he clearly states "the common defense or general welfare".

How can one separate the health of the citizens from their general welfare or the general welfare of the country? How can one possibly separate the health of the citizens from the government's ability to defend the country?

Although the causes and treatments of diseases were generally unknown at the time Madison made it clear the general welfare and common defense was a priority and a healthy population is vital for the protection of a country.

Is that so difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

Madison defines what "general welfare is" in Article I Section 8. It does not include medical insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top