[Bryan]

So here's a question I have. I have no doubt that federal UHC is a violation of the 10th amendment. Nowhere does the constitution give the fed govt the power to have UHC in any form. I would support amending the constitution to allow the fed to do so. But I think it is safe to say that some bill will pass further regulating health care. Let's assume for a moment that it has passed for the sake of discussion.

Here's my question. If it is such a clear violation, why doesn't someone sue in federal court on the basis of the 10th amendment to overturn that piece of legislation should it pass?

[JerryLove]

You'll have to kill medicare and medicade with it, and the federal highway system, and likely the CDC, and probably the DEA.

[Bryan]

understood. is that your answer to why nobody will or has in the past, that we'd have to end all these other good programs too?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Bryan

understood. is that your answer to why nobody will or has in the past, that we'd have to end all these other good programs too?

That, and this UHC bill is, essentially, a regulation of interstate commerce, and not enacting an entitlement program as such.

More to the point, though, is that the 10th amendment exists to protect the rights of the states, not necessarily to limit the powers of the federal gov't. IOWs, so long as UHC doesn't override the rights of the states to effectively make and enforce their own laws (subject to the US Constitution), it doesn't interfere with the 10th amendment.

A good historical example is the regulation of slavery in the territories. Read the first half of Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech for more info, but essentially the argument went like this. The US Constitution doesn't give any power to anyone ni the fderal government to regulate slavery in federal territories. Lincoln went through each of the federal laws regulating slavery in the territories and found how many of framers voted for them. The argument, then, said that simply because a particular power isn't named by the constitution, it doesn't follow that exercising or using that power is a violation of the 10th amendment, since the actual votes of actual framers passed those laws.

Not sure if that made sense, but read the Speech, and it makes more sense.

[nolidad]

More to the point, though, is that the 10th amendment exists to protect the rights of the states, not necessarily to limit the powers of the federal gov't. IOWs, so long as UHC doesn't override the rights of the states to effectively make and enforce their own laws (subject to the US Constitution), it doesn't interfere with the 10th amendment.

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.

It does not limit the fed as long as what teh fed seeks does not interfere with a state to exercise its sovereignty.

That, and this UHC bill is, essentially, a regulation of interstate commerce, and not enacting an entitlement program as such.

Which is untrue because insurance cannot cross state lines, hence no regulation of commerce between the states. Since the attempted packing of the court by FDR, the commerce clause has been abused by politicos on both sides to usurp what is otherwise a clear mandate that whatever rights not granted to the Fed by the constitution , or rights prohibited by the constitution to the states are rieserved to the states, or th eindividuals thereof. Mandating health insurance as a requirement ot be a citizen in good standing is an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Fed.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Since the attempted packing of the court by FDR, the commerce clause has been abused by politicos on both sides to usurp what is otherwise a clear mandate that whatever rights not granted to the Fed by the constitution , or rights prohibited by the constitution to the states are rieserved to the states, or th eindividuals thereof. Mandating health insurance as a requirement ot be a citizen in good standing is an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Fed.

Do you really believe this? Because, if I recall correctly, you're not in favor of repealing the Controlled Substances Act which amounts to an end-run around the state's power to allow or prohibit a drug by invoking the powers of the commerce clause.

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

That, and this UHC bill is, essentially, a regulation of interstate commerce, and not enacting an entitlement program as such.

More to the point, though, is that the 10th amendment exists to protect the rights of the states, not necessarily to limit the powers of the federal gov't. IOWs, so long as UHC doesn't override the rights of the states to effectively make and enforce their own laws (subject to the US Constitution), it doesn't interfere with the 10th amendment.

A good historical example is the regulation of slavery in the territories. Read the first half of Lincoln's Cooper Union Speech for more info, but essentially the argument went like this. The US Constitution doesn't give any power to anyone ni the fderal government to regulate slavery in federal territories. Lincoln went through each of the federal laws regulating slavery in the territories and found how many of framers voted for them. The argument, then, said that simply because a particular power isn't named by the constitution, it doesn't follow that exercising or using that power is a violation of the 10th amendment, since the actual votes of actual framers passed those laws.

Not sure if that made sense, but read the Speech, and it makes more sense.

I have to disagree with this interpretation. The constitution does contain a clause allowing the federal government to pass laws to regulate interstate commerce, but when the constitution was written, all "regulate" meant was "to make more regular." The constitution also was written as a grant of specific, enumerated powers. Laws cannot be passed that the congress does not expressly have the power to pass, and any that are passed are constitutionally null and void. This includes UHC, medicare, medicaid, social security, any legislation banning controlled substances, the department of education, and others. Every power not given to the federal government in the constitution goes then to the states. If the power isn't in the state constitution, it belongs to the people.

Lincoln himself ignored the constitution when he started the civil war, declaring that the states were not equal parties (which they are), and when he issued non-gold legal tender to finance his war.



To answer the original question: If I'm recalling correctly, constitutional cases have been brought up before regarding many of these things, and many of them get thrown out or lose. Most of them simply will never be heard. Our government, including the courts, have a mindset that the constitution should be interpreted by the legal definitions of the terms within as they are defined today, rather than how they were defined when the document was written. This is an incorrect mindset. Basically, the reason they haven't been repealed through a constitutional case is because the constitution is no longer in effect. There is no check on federal power.

[JerryLove]

This includes UHC, medicare, medicaid, social security, any legislation banning controlled substances, the department of education

Actually, the DOE doesn't exert the force of law on the states. The states comply "voulentarily", the same as they do with national drinking age, in order to get federal funds.

Yes, this interpretation removes the DEA, FBI, CIA, FDA, etc. No federal law enforcement within state borders (except for laws allowed in the constitution).

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Actually, the DOE doesn't exert the force of law on the states. The states comply "voulentarily", the same as they do with national drinking age, in order to get federal funds.

Laws are required for the DoE to exist and receive federal funding to distribute. They would be the ones that are unconstitutional.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

Laws are required for the DoE to exist and receive federal funding to distribute. They would be the ones that are unconstitutional.

Article 2 Section 2 says otherwise:

"[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments

I have to disagree with this interpretation. The constitution does contain a clause allowing the federal government to pass laws to regulate interstate commerce, but when the constitution was written, all "regulate" meant was "to make more regular."

This isn’t the way the framers themselves used the interstate commerce clause.

Originally Posted by Gibbons v. Ogden

"Commerce, undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something more—it is intercourse ... [A] power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted, as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce' ... [T]he power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several states. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines."

That was written by John Marshall, who was a part of the delegation that ratified the Constitution. He further defined regulation as "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed" and said that " "may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution." Ogden was handed down less than 40 years after the framing of the Constitution. Which is your contention? That language had changed so significantly in 40 years that 'regulate' did not mean what it means, or that the Framers were actively undermining the very Constitution they wrote?

The constitution also was written as a grant of specific, enumerated powers. Laws cannot be passed that the congress does not expressly have the power to pass, and any that are passed are constitutionally null and void.

Again, the problem is that the framers themselves did not follow this interpretation of the constitution. It was the framers who regulated slavery in federal territories without the specific, enumerated powers to do so. It was the framers who founded a central bank without the enumerated powers to do so. Is it your contention that the framers themselves were undermining the Constitution they wrote?

This includes UHC, medicare, medicaid, social security, any legislation banning controlled substances, the department of education, and others. Every power not given to the federal government in the constitution goes then to the states. If the power isn't in the state constitution, it belongs to the people.

Again, the framers themselves didn’t actually follow this interpretation. So... Do you know more than the framers?

Lincoln himself ignored the constitution when he started the civil war, declaring that the states were not equal parties (which they are), and when he issued non-gold legal tender to finance his war

Which is an interesting thing to say, although it doesn’t answer the question or is a response to what was written.

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Article 2 Section 2 says otherwise:





This isn’t the way the framers themselves used the interstate commerce clause.



That was written by John Marshall, who was a part of the delegation that ratified the Constitution. He further defined regulation as "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed" and said that " "may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution." Ogden was handed down less than 40 years after the framing of the Constitution. Which is your contention? That language had changed so significantly in 40 years that 'regulate' did not mean what it means, or that the Framers were actively undermining the very Constitution they wrote?



Again, the problem is that the framers themselves did not follow this interpretation of the constitution. It was the framers who regulated slavery in federal territories without the specific, enumerated powers to do so. It was the framers who founded a central bank without the enumerated powers to do so. Is it your contention that the framers themselves were undermining the Constitution they wrote?

Again, the framers themselves didn’t actually follow this interpretation. So... Do you know more than the framers?

Not all of the framers wanted limited government. Some felt that a stronger, more powerful national government would be a good thing, and thats why they wanted to replace the Articles of Confederation in the first place. That doesn't mean I agree with them just because they were framers. I think independently, and I believe the best role for government is a highly limited one. The best way to limit government is to remind them they exist because the people say they do and force them to exercise only a few, delegated powers. Fortunately, the Constitution does just that.

I have read a lot of John Marshall's decisions, and I tend to disagree with him. Call that what you will.

Which is an interesting thing to say, although it doesn’t answer the question or is a response to what was written.

You mentioned Lincoln. I mentioned Lincoln. I have the belief that Lincoln was a tyrannical, nationalistic ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ that doesn't deserve half the praise he gets.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

Not all of the framers wanted limited government. Some felt that a stronger, more powerful national government would be a good thing, and thats why they wanted to replace the Articles of Confederation in the first place. That doesn't mean I agree with them just because they were framers. I think independently, and I believe the best role for government is a highly limited one. The best way to limit government is to remind them they exist because the people say they do and force them to exercise only a few, delegated powers. Fortunately, the Constitution does just that.

This is begging the question. Your interpretation of the Constitution is contrary to what the writers intended, based on the actions and statements of those framers when they were actually governing via the Constitution. So, as far as I can tell, you're either left with saying A.) The Framers were intentionally undermining their own Constitution or B). The Libertarian position is wrong and the Constitution does not provide for a libertarian government. Please let me know if there's another option that I'm missing. Simply saying 'the Constitution provides for limited gov't' doesn't answer the question.

I have read a lot of John Marshall's decisions, and I tend to disagree with him. Call that what you will.

I call it non-interaction with a post.

You mentioned Lincoln. I mentioned Lincoln. I have the belief that Lincoln was a tyrannical, nationalistic ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ that doesn't deserve half the praise he gets.

Which is a strawman argument and doesn't actually address what either he or I wrote. It's fine to say that... Provided I made the argument that had anything to do with what you're writing here.

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

This is begging the question. Your interpretation of the Constitution is contrary to what the writers intended, based on the actions and statements of those framers when they were actually governing via the Constitution. So, as far as I can tell, you're either left with saying A.) The Framers were intentionally undermining their own Constitution or B). The Libertarian position is wrong and the Constitution does not provide for a libertarian government. Please let me know if there's another option that I'm missing. Simply saying 'the Constitution provides for limited gov't' doesn't answer the question.

Part of me feels like you're putting words in my mouth. Probably not intentionally, but I know what I was trying to get across, and it doesn't seem like you caught it.

Which is a strawman argument and doesn't actually address what either he or I wrote. It's fine to say that... Provided I made the argument that had anything to do with what you're writing here.

Perhaps I wasn't necessarily trying to address what you wrote?

I'm not interested in continuing this after this post.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Do you really believe this? Because, if I recall correctly, you're not in favor of repealing the Controlled Substances Act which amounts to an end-run around the state's power to allow or prohibit a drug by invoking the powers of the commerce clause.

Well 14 states have already end run around the CSA by legalizing "medical marijauna". Calif. had to put a moratorium on pot stores because thousands sprang up in months. As non prescribed narcotics are illegal in the and all states, if a dealer crosses state lines it can involve the fed with/without the CSA.

Yes, this interpretation removes the DEA, FBI, CIA, FDA, etc. No federal law enforcement within state borders (except for laws allowed in the constitution).

Not really, we should condense the varied federal police forces under one beauracracy not many, but there is a place for them.

That, and this UHC bill is, essentially, a regulation of interstate commerce, and not enacting an entitlement program as such.

More to the point, though, is that the 10th amendment exists to protect the rights of the states, not necessarily to limit the powers of the federal gov't. IOWs, so long as UHC doesn't override the rights of the states to effectively make and enforce their own laws (subject to the US Constitution), it doesn't interfere with the 10th amendment.

UHC is not interstatre commerce though. Right now many want the ability for insurance plans to be allowed to cross state lines which they cannot now. Also the federal govt. has no authority to mandate what kind of insurance a state may or may not wish to have enacted within its states borders.

Even though SCOTUS has given wide wide latitude concernigntthe Interstate Clause- it is an enumerated power to regulate commerce between the states, not to create commerce or mandate commerce betweenthe states, as UHC does.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by nolidad

UHC is not interstatre commerce though. Right now many want the ability for insurance plans to be allowed to cross state lines which they cannot now.

I think that's debatable, but certainly going ahead and ending the statewide monopolies would be a good thing, simply because it would open the industry up to a more clear-cut regulation.

Even though SCOTUS has given wide wide latitude concernigntthe Interstate Clause- it is an enumerated power to regulate commerce between the states, not to create commerce or mandate commerce betweenthe states, as UHC does.

Depends how the 'mandate' is applied, I suspect.