Value Added Tax???

Southern Man said:
Are you being purposely obtuse? Re-read post 83. Madison wrote both Federalist 14 and Federalist 41, as stated previously.
Click to expand...

What I want to know is what, exactly, you believe prevents the Federal Government from implementing a medical plan. EXACTLY! The exact words.
 
apple0154 said:
What I want to know is what, exactly, you believe prevents the Federal Government from implementing a medical plan. EXACTLY! The exact words.
Click to expand...
Because, according to the Constitution, as interpreted by the Father of the Constitution, they have no such authority.
 
apple0154 said:
Where does it say that? Give me the EXACT words otherwise we're just going in circles.
Click to expand...
The Constitution says what the the government can do, not what it can't do. That's basic. It starts with "We the People..." and ends (with the Bill or Rights, Amendments IX and X) "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.", and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So the fact that the Constitution does not say "The Congress shall have the Power to 'X' " means that Congress doesn't have the Power to 'X'. And that of course includes health care.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
The Constitution says what the the government can do, not what it can't do. That's basic. It starts with "We the People..." and ends (with the Bill or Rights, Amendments IX and X) "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.", and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So the fact that the Constitution does not say "The Congress shall have the Power to 'X' " means that Congress doesn't have the Power to 'X'. And that of course includes health care.
Click to expand...

The Preamble to the Constitution specifically states the general welfare. That is the purpose of the Constitution. It specifically mentions the government's role is to promote the general welfare.

The only possible argument you can offer is to say health has nothing to do with a person's welfare which wouldn't make any sense, at all.
 
apple, while I appreciate your enthusiasm in wanting to interpret the constitution as allowing the federal government to enact anything and everything in order to provide for the 'general welfare' and the good of the majority of the population of the US, you must take in to consideration why the constitution was written in such a way by the framers as to limit the central governments powers in all ways except as it is written. An overbearing government implementing policy for the good of its constituents leaves the definition of what is good up to the lawmakers or the majority. This is something that the founders had direct experience through the british crown as being a negative experience. Something they felt needed to be restricted. By following YOUR interpretation of the 'general welfare' clause, you're promoting and encouraging that same central government to have the power and authority to enact any policy it deems necessary for the general welfare of the population, which could include ALL aspects of the patriot act and the alien and sedition act. It's basically nothing more than a loophole for the federal government to ignore the bill of rights at the approval of the majority.

is that something you truly desire?
 
apple0154 said:
The Preamble to the Constitution specifically states the general welfare. That is the purpose of the Constitution. It specifically mentions the government's role is to promote the general welfare.

The only possible argument you can offer is to say health has nothing to do with a person's welfare which wouldn't make any sense, at all.
Click to expand...
There is a HUGE difference between the GENERAL welfare, and the collective welfare of the individual. Items like universal health care, government provisions for health care, etc. etc. etc. are aimed at welfare of the individual in need of assistance, which is NOT the purview of the federal government. The GENERAL welfare is refers to the overall strength and stability of the infrastructure of government and society. IF that is healthy, then individual welfare benefits as a result. But if it is NOT healthy, perhaps due to things like unfair distribution of tax load, consistent and ongoing deficit spending by federal government, then it is those very factors that affect individual welfare, and greatly increase the need to assist those negatively affected. (Try reading up on the effects of using positive feedback controls on closed systems.)

There is a REASON for the existence of the 10th Amendment: to state unequivocally that the federal government's powers - and subsequent job/responsibilities - were specifically stated, and anything NOT stated is the job/responsibility of STATE government, or the people themselves. It was written so that brain dead, big government twits could not claim additional powers on a perceived-need basis, or base laws on stupid, ill-informed, ignorant-beyond-belief ideas such as suggesting the preamble actually grants powers.

(Yes, they failed at anticipating the sheer willful ignorance of those who want a mommy government to tuck them in bed at night. Had they anticipated how fucking STUPID people could become in pursuing their dream of making government responsible for everything, they undoubtedly would have worded it even more strongly.)

Also: the preamble states the overall purpose of creating the Constitution, but does NOT grant powers. It is the ARTICLES that actually grant powers to the federal government. The preamble says "This is WHY we are making this document" and the articles say "This is HOW our government is to function". Again, there is a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
apple, while I appreciate your enthusiasm in wanting to interpret the constitution as allowing the federal government to enact anything and everything in order to provide for the 'general welfare' and the good of the majority of the population of the US, you must take in to consideration why the constitution was written in such a way by the framers as to limit the central governments powers in all ways except as it is written. An overbearing government implementing policy for the good of its constituents leaves the definition of what is good up to the lawmakers or the majority. This is something that the founders had direct experience through the british crown as being a negative experience. Something they felt needed to be restricted. By following YOUR interpretation of the 'general welfare' clause, you're promoting and encouraging that same central government to have the power and authority to enact any policy it deems necessary for the general welfare of the population, which could include ALL aspects of the patriot act and the alien and sedition act. It's basically nothing more than a loophole for the federal government to ignore the bill of rights at the approval of the majority.

is that something you truly desire?
Click to expand...

The way I understand it the problem with the British Crown was the taxes were going back to Britain and not being used to benefit the colonies. In any case why would they say "promote the general welfare"? "Promote" is an active verb. It involves doing something as opposed to "sitting" and "watching".

As for the Patriot Act one can argue it involves a loss of freedom. Just as more invasive searches are carried out as new ways to blow up planes come into being it has to be balanced.

The health care bill subsidizes those who can't afford to buy insurance. No one truly suffers from having to buy health insurance. It doesn't benefit only the government or rulers as was the case with the British taxes.

With biological warfare/terrorist attacks being a distinct possibility isn't having the country prepared to deal with all the citizens an idea whose time has come?

With plane travel epidemics can easily spread across the country. Again, this is something the Founding Fathers could never have imagined.

The current medical plan is a start. In the future the medical community will have to be able to access a person's medical file immediately. That will involve computerized records. For example, they'll need to know who is allergic to certain anti-biotics.

The government has an obligation to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. The best defence against an epidemic or biological attack is to ensure the citizens are healthy to begin with and that will slowly evolve as affordable health care morphs into universal health care.

Good health benefits the individual as well as the country as a whole. What loss of freedom, what hardship does anyone suffer by having a government supervised or implemented medical plan?
 
Good Luck said:
There is a HUGE difference between the GENERAL welfare, and the collective welfare of the individual. Items like universal health care, government provisions for health care, etc. etc. etc. are aimed at welfare of the individual in need of assistance, which is NOT the purview of the federal government. The GENERAL welfare is refers to the overall strength and stability of the infrastructure of government and society. IF that is healthy, then individual welfare benefits as a result. But if it is NOT healthy, perhaps due to things like unfair distribution of tax load, consistent and ongoing deficit spending by federal government, then it is those very factors that affect individual welfare, and greatly increase the need to assist those negatively affected. (Try reading up on the effects of using positive feedback controls on closed systems.)

There is a REASON for the existence of the 10th Amendment: to state unequivocally that the federal government's powers - and subsequent job/responsibilities - were specifically stated, and anything NOT stated is the job/responsibility of STATE government, or the people themselves. It was written so that brain dead, big government twits could not claim additional powers on a perceived-need basis, or base laws on stupid, ill-informed, ignorant-beyond-belief ideas such as suggesting the preamble actually grants powers.

(Yes, they failed at anticipating the sheer willful ignorance of those who want a mommy government to tuck them in bed at night. Had they anticipated how fucking STUPID people could become in pursuing their dream of making government responsible for everything, they undoubtedly would have worded it even more strongly.)

Also: the preamble states the overall purpose of creating the Constitution, but does NOT grant powers. It is the ARTICLES that actually grant powers to the federal government. The preamble says "This is WHY we are making this document" and the articles say "This is HOW our government is to function". Again, there is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't a huge difference. The "how" part has to serve the "why" part. The reason, the "why", was to benefit the citizen. What other possible reason could there be?

As I noted previously one of the main purposes of the Constitution was to promote the general welfare. General welfare of whom, if not the citizens?
 
FYI, Apple, Constitutional scholars in the US agree that the Preamble has no legal meaning or application. Regardless, the Preamble states that all of the things such as promoting the general welfare are for the purpose of "form[ing] a more perfect union."
 
apple0154 said:
No, there isn't a huge difference. The "how" part has to serve the "why" part. The reason, the "why", was to benefit the citizen. What other possible reason could there be?

As I noted previously one of the main purposes of the Constitution was to promote the general welfare. General welfare of whom, if not the citizens?
Click to expand...
Yes, the GENERAL welfare. As in GENERAL, not individual. What you are supporting is a system that PROVIDES (as opposed to promotes) INDIVIDUAL welfare of specific individuals determined to be in need. That is NOT what is meant by the term General Welfare no matter how much you wish it to be so.

Additionally, the HOW is as important as the WHY. In short, the HOW states what means the federal government is allowed to use to achieve its designed responsibilities. As in "you (meaning the federal government) may do THIS, THIS and THIS to achieve your goals, but NOT (via 10th Amendment limitations) anything else EXCEPT what we gave you permission to do."

By your definition the federal government can literally do ANY DAMED THING THEY WANT, as long as they can defend it under "general welfare", where it is the GOVERNMENT who is defining "general welfare". The sedition act was OK, because it protected the general welfare. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was okee dokee, because it promoted the general welfare. The Japanese detainment camps of WWII were perfectly and properly within the right of the government, because it was for the general welfare in time of war. The new FISA laws that allow any one of us to be determined an enemy agent without due process, detaining American citizens in military prison without trial, sending them to Guantanamo is within the rights of the federal government because protecting the rest of us from enemy agents falls under general welfare. They can imprison you for speaking out in the wrong manner because (as in the 1800s) certain types of "sedition" are "harmful" to the "general welfare".

In short, your definition of using the general welfare clause to excuse any action of government is dead fracking WRONG. Your thinking is EXACTLY what the anti-federalists were TRYING to protect us from with the Bill of Rights, and specifically, the 9th and 10th Amendments.
 
apple0154 said:
The way I understand it the problem with the British Crown was the taxes were going back to Britain and not being used to benefit the colonies. In any case why would they say "promote the general welfare"? "Promote" is an active verb. It involves doing something as opposed to "sitting" and "watching".
Click to expand...
taxes heading back to the crown was only a small portion of the issue, but regardless and to your contention, 'promote the general welfare' is designed to enact policies that provide the citizenry with the widest array of choices to make for their prosperity. It is not a clause to provide congress the power to say 'we know whats best for you and this is what you'll do'. the restrictions that the founders intended to apply to the central government are essentially erased by your interpretation.


apple0154 said:
The health care bill subsidizes those who can't afford to buy insurance. No one truly suffers from having to buy health insurance. It doesn't benefit only the government or rulers as was the case with the British taxes.
Click to expand...
but it most certainly does benefit an entire industry. The supporters of the HCR have stated that increasing the size of the 'risk pool' provides cheaper insurance and medical costs. While this is intellectually dishonest, it does indeed lower some costs, but it also guarantees an industry to have a profit, in what SHOULD be a capitalist market. Essentially, you're letting the government guarantee a profit to an entire industry, not unlike a fascist regime.

apple0154 said:
With biological warfare/terrorist attacks being a distinct possibility isn't having the country prepared to deal with all the citizens an idea whose time has come?
Click to expand...
Then mandate the purchase of bio suits and gas masks, because health insurance isn't going to help anyone in a sarin gas attack.

apple0154 said:
With plane travel epidemics can easily spread across the country. Again, this is something the Founding Fathers could never have imagined.
Click to expand...
this is an argument i've always found to be a strawman. The founding fathers didn't write the constitution to deal with just what they could have imagined. They wrote it to outline the operations of the federal government, with EXPLICIT steps to modify or amend that outline. anything else is just judicial tyranny.

apple0154 said:
The current medical plan is a start. In the future the medical community will have to be able to access a person's medical file immediately. That will involve computerized records. For example, they'll need to know who is allergic to certain anti-biotics.
Click to expand...
and the further infringement of privacy rights in the name of security continues.

apple0154 said:
The government has an obligation to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. The best defence against an epidemic or biological attack is to ensure the citizens are healthy to begin with and that will slowly evolve as affordable health care morphs into universal health care.

Good health benefits the individual as well as the country as a whole. What loss of freedom, what hardship does anyone suffer by having a government supervised or implemented medical plan?
Click to expand...

when that government demands private info to be accessible at the push of a button, who knows what abuse that can be left up to? it is that possibility of abuse that the founding fathers wished to prevent.
 
apple0154 said:
The Preamble to the Constitution specifically states the general welfare. That is the purpose of the Constitution. It specifically mentions the government's role is to promote the general welfare.

The only possible argument you can offer is to say health has nothing to do with a person's welfare which wouldn't make any sense, at all.
Click to expand...
Madison disagrees, and he carries more weight than you. Did you read Federalist 14 and 41?
 
Southern Man said:
The FAIR Tax calculations before the 'Rat Congress increased spending dramatically put a revenue neutral VAT replacement of the income tax at about 17%, which is about 76% lower than your estimate. Have you lib-tards increased spending that much in such a short time?
Click to expand...

Did you protest Bush's insane spending sprees?

Didn't think so, hypocrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top