Congressman Anthony Weiner - debating the constitutionality of the health bill is not important!

[Mambu152]

It is ironic that Weiner should be asking who the camera is for and if he is going to see himself somewhere. I am not gloating. I think it is very sad.

[biggetjeknor]

America is really f-up!! Is it constitutional?!!? Do I even have a right to medical care!?!?!? you guys need to f''n develop yourselves! Weiner probably has to fight his "unconstitutional" image after this...Don't give up Tony!!!!

Mambu this is such a stupid question because the philosophy of The constitution is WE THE PEOPLE. After all the things USA has done, for a (freakin) jew to ask if THIS is constitutional?....damn man......America is really f-up!

[Mambu152]

@biggetjeknor The philosophy of the Constitution is that we the people have certain inalienable rights and that the government has limits to what it can do to us. It is not about what the Government has the right to do FOR us but what it does not have the right to do TO us. All Americans should be concerned about what the government tries to do for them because there is always a price to pay and often the price is liberty. Being a (freaking) Jew has nothing to do with it. I am an American.

[flapjackmaka]

Weiner is such a flippin idiot!

[tankebaner]

I think and I think Rep. Weiner thinks that as long as the constiution does not say anything about it the congress and the president have the right to implement laws. The constiution provides minority rights and defines how the government is run but as long as there is nothing said in the constiution its a fair go its allowed. Thus the government could not take away the freedom of speech, but it could, if it wanted to select Donald Duck as a national mascot, it would be silly, but they could.

[Relbl]

@tankebaner True - so are you against Donald Duck as a national mascot? He seems to be a perfect fit for America: talks loud, can barely understand him, and gets angry at everything he doesn't understand (which happens to be a lot). Pretty bang on pal. I would just like to say that I hope every person that's against a national healthcare plan that covers all no matter what gets their wish to go bankrupt from disease treatment and die anyway as a pauper - you too can join the other 50000 per year

[gcadenaz]

what does the constitution have ANYTHING to do with it? the constitution (like the constitution of ANY country) is a document that defines how the country will be governed. it defines the separation of powers, the judiciary, the legislature etc etc.

"is it constitutional?" what a stupid question!

tell me something.....is article 3b, section 2, sub section 4 of the 1976 californian agriculture resources and irrigation management ammendment constitutional?

[Mambu152]

@gcadenaz

what you are saying is that two wrongs make a right. They broke the constitution there so do it here too. So the question is very good. Why is the constitutionality of the law not a consideration?

At any rate, it is too late now.

[NiceVideos11]

When the constitution was written blacks were slaves...... I guess we should all go back to picking cotton..... Thank God for Amendments and Bills to correct a document that contains flaws....

Where was all the uproar when Bush actually DID trample all over the fourth Amendment???

Health Care IS a right, like Education is a right... unless you're a minority apparently....

[Mambu152]

@NiceVideos11 You’re saying is that the constitution is flawed. Agreed. It was made by men not GD. That’s why the founders allowed for change. But the changes must be made constitutionally.

Re Bush: Are you saying two wrongs make a right? Bush broke the constitution there so Obama can too?

You've a constitutional right to provide for your own health care/ education but where does the constitution say the government must provide health care or education for you?

[elizawyo]

Asking if healthcare is constitutional is a meaningless question. If they didn't, the government would be pointless. Allowing every American to get paid for work they've done is not in the constitution but it's a law. The government makes a lot of laws that aren't in the constitution. Anyone knows that. He''s wasting the Rep's time and responding to what Weiner says without letting him respond...just like a child.

[Mambu152]

Of course not all laws are in the constitution. The point is that every law must be constitutional. That he doesn't even want to consider that is very telling. As far as wasting his time, I'd heard his answer. He was not addressing the point but he wasn't letting me follow up. He did this all night. When someone agreed he'd let them talk but when someone wanted to follow up a tough question he'd cut them off and filibuster. This was the only way to get heard and he didn't even hear that.

[Mambu152]

You also said that if congress couldnt make programs such as this without debating their constitutionality then there wouldnt be a need for Congress. This simply isnt so. Congress has many enumerated powers besides taxing and spending.

[Mambu152]

There has been much debate as to how to interpret this clause. Many interpret it broadly and say anything Congress feels is in the general welfare is constitutional and so health care is covered by this clause. Others say the constitution must be interpreted narrowly and so health care isnt covered. Thats our debate and its good. But Weiner just said we need it so lets pass it and dont mention the Constitution.

[jnthnlck]

I can't defend or attack Weiner just based on a 3 min. clip. However, it seems reasonable to me that we need to define "general welfare" within the framework of constitutional law. I would define it as any topic or issue that concerns the peace or prosperity of all Americans. Health Care I believe is an issue of general welfare, for obvious reasons.

[Mambu152]

I was using Weiner as an example because he was featured on the clip but his approach is representative of many.

It would be great to have a clear definition of "general welfare" but that is a hard thing to do like distinguishing pornography from art.

Your definition of general welfare as any topic or issue that concerns the peace or prosperity of all Americans is interesting. The problem is that according to the proponents of this bill only 47 million are without insurance.

[jnthnlck]

It's true, estimates are that 47 mil are uninsured. But the problem is, when 47 mil are still getting health care, because if/when the 47 mil get sick, they use hospitals as primary care, which is the most expensive form of care, driving up everybody's costs. Also, insurance for everyone is just 1 piece of the legislation. There are measures to change the rules for insurance companies, and keeping quality care and still save $. For that and other reasons, I think it's a general welfare issue.

[Mambu152]

sorry for delay I don't think potential problems that may one day affect the whole country make it a general welfare issue now. Also the issues other than insurance (driving up costs) are not problems with private health care system as much as of bad, unconstitutional gov't. Does it make sense for gov't to spend more $ unconstitutionaly to fix problems they made unconstitutionaly? Ex: don't make new rules for insurance comp's. Remove old rules and sell insurance across state lines.

[jnthnlck]

I fundamentally disagree with your stance on too many points to express in 500 characters or less. We need to drive down costs, and insurance companies need more regulation; they've been getting away with murder for decades, denying coverage, dropping claims, not insuring pre-existing conditions, all for 30% profits for shareholders & execs year over year. And I believe when an industry is unfairly mistreating the American people it's not only the govt's prerogative, but obligation to step in.

[GoodShabbos2UFamily]

you're going back to since the current situation is bad the go'vt must do something. sure something must be done to fix all of these points, but it must be done constitutionally. I also believe that there are some very good constitutional solutions to all of these problems and they are cheaper, faster and easier than the bills being debated now. Why spend billions and wait 10 years when you can at least try to fix the emergency now for free?

[Mambu152]

Yes, Congress has power to make laws in our general welfare. This power isnt from the preamble from Article I,Section 8,Clause 1 of the Constitution which limits government spending taxpayer money "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US".

[jnthnlck]

To explain my point further, I think it is completely constitutional for Congress to observe the conditions of our country and consider any legislation they (acting on behalf of their constituents by virtue of their duly elected status) deem necessary to promote the general welfare of all citizens. Otherwise, there would be no need for Congress. We would simply have the Executive Branch to carry out the constitution, and the Judicial Branch to interpret the law. I don't see the controversy.

[jnthnlck]

My argument is that national discussions like health care reform is very much within the framework of the US Const., as specified in the preamble -- "To..PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE." Health Care Reform, in my view, promotes the general well-being of all Americans, which is why it's so important that Congress takes the debate seriously.

[michaelpshipley1]

this whole argument is irrelevant. health care is not a federal issue. the federal government was meant to deal with problems at the state level, not at the individual level, that's what the states are for. we've gone too far with centralization. this is whats causing all the problems. we had none of these problems when the federal government was small. centralization angers people, they dont like to be forced. let each state decide how they want to care for their citizens.

[Mambu152]

In my mind there is no debate.about health care is resolved in my mind just as it is yours. However, not everyone sees it our way, and that is why it should be debated first. But the real purpose of this to force people Like the Congressman say who cares, we need so do it to think of the Constitution. Force the question, if I can prove to you that it is unconstitutional, would you do it anyway? If he had given me a follow up I would have asked him.

[Amiel912]

Great Comment!

[scbluesman13]

@Mambu152:

the Healthcare reform bill is not a constitutional issue. Certain aspects of its outcome might be, which have to be deliberated by congress but for the most part, setting up a social service is not a constitutional issue. Now, if you want to argue about the fairness of taxation in general, that *would* be a constitutional issue, but how the government spends your tax dollars isn't.

[Mambu152]

setting up a social service for Health care reform is very much a constitutional issue, even if we were to agree that only certain aspects are unconstituional, since it does require federal taxing and spending and this taxing and sending may indeed be unconstituional. Spending is just as much a constitutional issue as Taxing. The taxing for a program means the money will be spent on the program. They go together.

[keesyo]

Even if you cannot claim a Consitutional right to health care, I have a moral obligation to provide you with it. God tells us to treat our neighbor as we would want to be treated.

[Mambu152]

I thought I replied to this but it doesn't show on my browser. I agree that we have a moral obligation to help but it can and must be done within the limits of the constitution

[Amiel912]

Great video!

[Mambu152]

Thanks

[exinferiz]

If medicare is unconstitutional.. then so are public highways, firefighters.. etc...

[Mambu152]

See my reply to previous post.

[exinferiz]

if it was a question of constitutionality... why do you suppose republicans are not using that argument against the public plan...

[Mambu152]

That's easy.

1. They are just as guilty and can't speak out without being hypocrites.

2. The congressman was correct when he said that no one really cares. People are looking out for their bottom line.

[NiceVideos11]

1. Republicans are not ashamed nor embarrassed to be hypocritical...

2. That's not exactly what he said... His point was there is a NEED for health care reform.. and because there is a NEED.... then lets do it!! Makes sense to me.....

[donnadarko]

It's not about the Constitution.

The government provides our education (schools) and physical protection (police and fire departments). It should provide our health too.

[Mambu152]

It is about the constitution. Or at least it should be. Soe of the popular programs in place now are not constitutional. Dept of Education is not covered by general welfare as far as I know. Police and fire are local institutions and are not to be funded by the feds. The fed gov't does have obligation to protect people in other ways such as military, etc.

[scbluesman13]

If you're so concerned about what's constitutional, why weren't you at the republican national convention asking people if they thought passing the patriot act was the right thing to do?

I thought not...

[Mambu152]

Are you saying two wrongs make a right? Since Bush and many others have disregarded the Constitution then Obama can too?

[scbluesman13]

Obama isn't. I'm just simply pointing out that when your king george is trampling all over the constitution, you sheeple are silent. As soon as we get to some major reform led by a liberal president you all are up in arms like it's the second coming. This outcry has nothing to do with healthcare. This outcry has nothing to do with policy. That's my point.

[Mambu152]

1. Obama is.

2. He was not my King George and I opposed a lot of his policies. He was a hold your nose and vote President for me.

3. It has everything to do with healhcare but it feirst must be constitutional. I happen to feel health care must be reformed. Just do so within the limits of the constitution.

[NiceVideos11]

This in reality at its core has nothing to do with health care... this has to do with corporatism run amuck. I understand your point and I understand the reasoning behind your search of understanding, but to do it at the expense of health care I don't feel is a fruitful exercise

[RP2008PREZ]

Of course you knew how to operate the camera, and of course you knew you were going to put this, and only this, on YouTube. Were you so concerned about the constitution when we started the second Iraq War without a congressional declaration? And if HC isn't "gauranteed," let you be the first to write the law saying that if someone is dying and they don't have enough money, they'll just be left to die. People get healthcare anyway; the question is just whether we can lower the costs.

[Mambu152]

I knew how to take the video more or less but If you take a look at my youtube account you will see that this is the first and only video I have ever posted. I am a slow learner and ittook me three days to figure out how to do it.

Re the war: Yes I was concerned and I said so to anyone who would listen.

Not making unconstitutional reforms does not= poor people dying. As you say people get health care anyway.

Re: lowering costs I am all for it just do so Constitutionaly.

[HerbertHKohl]

You asked him if healthcare was a gauranteed right under the constitution, and he said "Who cares?"

Well why should he care? As long as his plans don't actually violate the constitution, he should be able to propose whatever he wants.

[Mambu152]

If they don't then I would be willing to debate it on the merits of the bill. The point is that he didn't even think it was worth debating whether it violated the constitution.

And besides, the point is that there is definitely a case to be made that it in fact does violate the constitution because the Fed. Gov't does not have a right to tax and spend except for things tey are authirized to by the Constituion.

[HerbertHKohl]

He knows his plans are allowed under the constitution, he just doesn't care whether the constitution treats healthcare as a right. That's what he's saying.

So anyways, why don't you go ahead and make your complete argument as to why medicare for all Americans would be unconstitutional.

[Mambu152]

He said that he didn't know and that he didn't care to discuss it. And he should care if it is a right because he must justify the spending somehow.

An the same arguement applies to all of these programs including social security as many argued when these programs were first proposed. The problem is that once in place they are almost impossible to get rid of. All that can be done is to try and prevent any further programs from being passed

[prisonerofalliance]

The point is health care is not unconstitutional. Not all laws are in the constitution -- the founders wanted the constitution to place restrictions and set fundamentals, not to contain every law for the future. The constitution says nothing about airplanes. Is the FAA unconstitutional? The anti-health care "patriots" yelling about the constitution know absolutely nothing about their own country's core principles which they're supposedly defending.

[Mambu152]

You are correct, Many laws are unconstitutional and that is a very big problem. There may be some room to debate the consttutionality of much of the spending under the general welfare clause but the constitution definitely was concernced about containg future spending. There is debate about the FAA as well as many other institutions. And yes we do know about the constitution. And even if we didn't, as a law maker he should but he said he didn't and didn't even care to discuss it.

[8MinutesofMusic]

i love Anthony Weiner ... Weiner is real hope and change Weiner 4 president 2012

[helltrackrider]

...I've read the Constitution a few times....

hahaha...this guy.

[Mambu152]

I also thought it amusing, in a sad way, that he said he didn't know whether it was constitutional. He should have.

[prisonerofalliance]

The Constitution was a purposefully malleable though systemically restrictive document. Clearly, the founders didn't foresee airplanes and our modern health care system. These clearly fall under "promoting general welfare" and forming "a more perfect union". As if mega-corporations -- which Republicans de facto support in action if not in word -- are not a form of tyranny and even, in deed if not definition, they very sort of shadow government the Constitution was meant to protect us from.

[Mambu152]

They don't clearly fall under "promoting general welfare" as understood by all except the most liberal of legislators and "a more perfect union" is preamble and not actual constitutional law. The general welfare clause has been abused. Yes, there are things the founders didn't forsee, like terrorism, but we must follow limited guidelines. Can we justify all aspects of the war on terror even the patriot act being covered under To declare War..Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures.

[prisonerofalliance]

The General Welfare clause lays out Congress's right to tax "to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." It then lists areas covered, but in no way restricts definition of the general welfare to what has been listed. How in the world can you say guiding air traffic safely and allowing people timely access to life saving treatments do not fall under the "general welfare clause"? I have not heard one serious constitutional scholar - like Obama -

[prisonerofalliance]

seriously doubt the constitutionality of this. But your implicit dismissal of "the most liberal" tells me you're an ideologue. Historically, the imposition of one abstract ideology on the real world-as-it-is does nobody any good. Life is far more complicated and evolving and requires ad hoc & pragmatic solutions. Sometimes raising taxes works, other times it doesn't. A healthy free market requires some regulation, etc. Europe, Japan, et al are lucky they wrote their Constitutions after ours'.

[Mambu152]

I agree the public's general welfare needs change with the times and that the general welfare clause can credibly be interpreted liberally. FAA can credibly go either way. I just don't like the who cares if it's constitutional, we need it so do it approach Wiener and also the GOP takes. I also think that historically it has been the liberals who have done the most stretching of the clause at least in terms of massive programs like social security etc,. That's the way I see it.