Is Nationalized Health Care Constitutional?

This video addresses the Constitutionality of the current health care legislation. Is it Constitutional? Watch the video to find out.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• health
• care
• single
• payer
• public
• option
• constitution
• obama
• president
• democrats
• united
• states
• america
• congress
• republicans
• conservative
• liberal
• progressive
• nancy
• pelosi
• harry
• reid
• fox
• news
• msnbc
• cbs
• abc
• cnn
• politics
• history

[TRMerc]

You're drawing a conclusion from that definition. Name ONE welfare program that was instituted at the founding of America, or in the years when the founding fathers were president. There are 0, none, nada. Not a single program to help those who have not tried to help themselves or help the government

The founding Father's did not set up the United States to become a nanny state in which the US government PROVIDES EVERYTHING FOR LIFE to it's citizens

[bRizzle2009100]

@TRMerc Im drawing a conclusion based on the "Father of the Constitution" and other's writings on what the clauses mean. I dont know why your arguing with me when we both agree on the issue. The bill is unconstitutional.

[TRMerc]

@bRizzle2009100 Sorry, I typed that comment before watching the entire video. that first conclusion you drew though is what most democrats are using, which is what made me think you supported it at first

[bRizzle2009100]

@TRMerc Its quite alright. Not a problem at all. Feel free to check out my other videos.

[greyflcn]

Is it constitutional issue a tax?

Is it constitutional to issue a tax exemption.

Such as an exemption from the tax if you purchase a qualifying health program?

_

Also you ignore the last section of your own webster's quote.

And infact, if General Welfare meant the same as Common Defense. Then why would Common Defense be mentioned just previously to it? Wouldn't that be redundant?

_

Also, the 10th amendment is basically made irrelevent by the 16th, and the Supremacy Clause.

[bRizzle2009100]

And also, if u look at the founders' own quotes, they were against the idea of entitlement programs because they didnt want people voting for money instead of the candidate.

[greyflcn]

@bRizzle2009100

Like I said, the 10th is irrelevant because the federal government can withhold reimbursement of federal tax revenue using the 16th.

So unless you have a state with suicidal congress members, the 10th can't be exercised.

_

And furthermore, the amendment process fundamentally changes the way the Constitution functions. For instance, Slavery is illegal now.

_

And your last arguments basically says that the opinions of individual founders trumps the Constitution. Which is silly

[bRizzle2009100]

And the Supremacy Clause just says National law always trumps State law. For instance, u have a right to fair trial, the states cant take that away from u bc in the Supremacy Clause it says any National law is the law of the land and any State of Local law cannot conflict with National law.

[bRizzle2009100]

Yes all the above are Constitutional. But the income tax would have never been passed in the founding era in my opinion. There is a reason why they had to pass a Constitutional amendment to do it because they knew it was unconstitutional to begin with. And no the Supremacy Clause or the 16th Amendment doesnt make the 10th Amendment irrelevant. Any powers not delegated to the federal government in this Constitution is reserved to the states or to the people.