Public Option not dead after all! Compromise: State Opt-out?

[bhsup]

What about a rifle?

*ducks and runs in the same direction Ziggy went*

Maybe not the feds, but how about Kennesaw, Georgia?

On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the ordinance, but it has still had the effect of reducing crime by at least 50%.

And the beauty followup...

The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families". The article appears in the magazine's August 2007 edition. The publication announced the results of its search to identify the best communities across the country that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools (part of the Cobb County School District), wide-open spaces, and a lot less stress.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good move for Family Circle. I would also want to stay on the good side of a town where everyone owns a firearm.

 

[bhsup]

The hilarious thing being that Family Circle also gave Morton Grove, IL the same honor in the same year. Which is the city which passed a firearms ban that prompted Kennesaw to pass the requirement to own a gun.

 

[illram]

The Constitution, ineffect, says "Congress has control over this, this, and this, and can make laws to regulate/ban/control them." It does not mean "Congress and go these things, but also random other things that we decided not to talk about." If it meant that, then what's the point of listing anything that Congress could do? Everyone could just read into what they wanted! You're effectively giving the federal government unlimited reach.

Honestly, this debate disgusts me. I really understand the need to get more people insured, but the blatant disrespect so many people, here and elsewhere, have for the Constitution disgusts me. Think of a better rationale than "We think Congress should be able to....so they can! Whee!"

It's not arbitrary at all. The Constitution lays out a basic foundation of powers and the legislature enacts those rules that are necessary and proper to carry out the basic functions of government, as our resident strict constructionist showed us all above.

"A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would, probably, never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

1. According to your quote, only the "important objects" for governmental control are designated in the Constitution
2. The Constitution does not mention healtchare
3. Conclusion: Healthcare is not an "important object," in a Constitutional sense.

Is this what you're arguing?

I won't speak for Cleo but the "important objects" is a bit more general than delineating specific things, like health care. A more basic "important object" would be something like taxing and spending for the general welfare. (And practically speaking is modern health care something that an 18th century politician could have possibly foreseen?)

edit: and I'd say that the term "general welfare" is about as close as you would get to health care from the perspective of an 18th century bloke anyway.

 

[warpus]

@Elrohir How is healthcare not important?

 

[Elrohir]

It's not arbitrary at all. The Constitution lays out a basic foundation of powers and the legislature enacts those rules that are necessary and proper to carry out the basic functions of government, as our resident strict constructionist showed us all above.

The problem is, according to the Constitution, providing healthcare is not a basic function of government. Now, perhaps it should be - but the Constitution does not allow it to be so. The honest thing to do would be to either work around that (Perhaps just letting the states do it themselves? Maybe even giving them money to run their own states programs) or fixing it directly with a constitutional amendment. Simply saying that it's "not a serious question," as Pelosi did, is simply disgusting.

I won't speak for Cleo but the "important objects" is a bit more general than delineating specific things, like health care. A more basic "important object" would be something like taxing and spending for the general welfare. (And practically speaking is modern health care something that an 18th century politician could have possibly foreseen?)

edit: and I'd say that the term "general welfare" is about as close as you would get to health care from the perspective of an 18th century bloke anyway.

Did you read the quote? He was saying that the "important objects" were clearly mentioned in the Constitution, with the little details inferred, because if they put in every little detail, then the Constitution wouldn't be readable by the common people. Cleo seemed to be saying that the Constitution didn't need to specifically authorize the federal government to provide healthcare service, because it only talked in terms of "important objects" - but if that's true, then healthcare can't be an important object! Which seems kind of contradictory, given how much fuss we're making over it.

My point was that Cleo's quote didn't really help his case, because if it's true, then it would contradict his position in this whole debate by making healthcare unimportant.

@Elrohir How is healthcare not important?

Please go back and reread my post. I don't believe that healthcare is unimportant, and if you carefully read what I posted, that'd be clear to you.

 

[Karalysia]

@Elorhir The Constitution allows a whole lot of things it just depends on how you read it.

For example McCulloh v. Maryland established the use of the necessary and proper clause and the supremacy clause which allowed the Federal Government to establish a national bank and forbid Maryland from taxing it. The power to establish a bank while not explicitly given in the Constitution is a implicit power which is granted to Congress in taxation and spending. The federal government cannot be denied the tools to act in carrying out its enumerated powers and the establishment of the bank is a tool, and the states are not permitted to impede this.

Incidentally this is also where the general welfare clause is located which can be constructed to mean a whole lot of things again depending on your reading. In Home Builder Association v. Blaisdell case in Minnesota during the Great Depression the state basically gave homeowners an extension on their mortgages. It went to the Supreme Court as a violation of the contract clause. The Court ruled in favor of Minnesota allowing them to essentially violate the contract.

You would think the contract clause would be pretty clear wouldn't you? The wording is certainely clear enough

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Yet that is exactly what Minnesota did and the Court found it fine. There is no correct way to read the Constitution as you seem to be arguing. The Constitution didn't come with a sign saying read me broadly or narrowly (I may have quoted someone with this line but I don't remember who). You hold that the strict constructionist agreement is correct. Yet many many intelligent men and women SCOTUS justices disagree in particular Brennan on the current Court. There would be no need for the Court in the first place if we knew how to correctly read the Constitution.

 

[illram]

The problem is, according to the Constitution, providing healthcare is not a basic function of government. Now, perhaps it should be - but the Constitution does not allow it to be so. The honest thing to do would be to either work around that (Perhaps just letting the states do it themselves? Maybe even giving them money to run their own states programs) or fixing it directly with a constitutional amendment. Simply saying that it's "not a serious question," as Pelosi did, is simply disgusting.

Well I haven't read the bill, maybe it is a state funds hostage thing like highway $$$ for more restrictive alcohol laws, I don't know.

And even if it is a straight federal program, the Constitution says Congress can tax and spend for the General Welfare. Health Care seems pretty "general welfare-ish" in fact more so than a lot of other stuff we do in the name of "general welfare." N&P furthermore says Congress can perform those powers necessary and proper to carry out its directives.... taken together I don't see the controversy here.

Cleo seemed to be saying that the Constitution didn't need to specifically authorize the federal government to provide healthcare service, because it only talked in terms of "important objects" - but if that's true, then healthcare can't be an important object! Which seems kind of contradictory, given how much fuss we're making over it.

Again I can't speak for Cleo but the argument is, IMHO, that the constitution authorizes a general framework of power, e.g. taxing and spending for the general welfare, and then we, i.e. the living people that have to deal with the document these dead people wrote for us, have to figure out what is and isn't "general welfare." And like I said, the words "health care" or anything approaching how modern health care works were a complete unknown back then. IMHO general welfare contemplates health care, so yes, it was important even back then and they did include it.

 

[Cutlass]

you guys really fail to get basic things as national healthcare done, huh?

if this was 1920, ok, but goddam, it's two thousand freaking nine.

It's inexcusable. How anyone can call the Democrats leftists, not just now, but at any point in the past century, when they can't even do this, boggles the mind.

 

[Karalysia]

If the health care isn't passed by Xmas I propose we resurrect Sherman and burn Atlanta a second time.

 

[kramerfan86]

This opt out makes no sense to me. What happens if I get the public option then in 5 years a right leaning government takes over and suddenly just pulls the rug out?

I think the trigger option was the best call, give the "free market" one last chance to resolve its own problems. This is just stupid to me and was a weak illogical attempt to bribe moderates over

 

[Cutlass]

This opt out makes no sense to me. What happens if I get the public option then in 5 years a right leaning government takes over and suddenly just pulls the rug out?

I think the trigger option was the best call, give the "free market" one last chance to resolve its own problems. This is just stupid to me and was a weak illogical attempt to bribe moderates over

Generally speaking, once a program is up and running it may get modified, but not ended. Not if it has broad public support. And any health care program will have that support. Look at all the programs Republicans have run for office promising to end, and haven't even come close.

 

[warpus]

Please go back and reread my post. I don't believe that healthcare is unimportant, and if you carefully read what I posted, that'd be clear to you.

I haven't been following the thread - I just saw you write that healthcare is not an "important object", and wanted to know how you can think such a thing.

Anyway, carry on.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

The necessary and proper clause, the words of which, y'know, are actually in the Constitution. Note the bolded parts which people just love to ignore.

Taxing and spendung for the general welfare, as illram has already pointed out.

"A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would, probably, never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

1. According to your quote, only the "important objects" for governmental control are designated in the Constitution
2. The Constitution does not mention healtchare
3. Conclusion: Healthcare is not an "important object," in a Constitutional sense.

Is this what you're arguing?

Of course not. The Constitution specifically mention taxing and spending for the general welfare.

Hmm, and I'm curious: if you really believe that Congress not only has the power to legislate healthcare for the nation, but also require individuals to get health insurance...do you believe that Congress has the right to require individual citizens to purchase other goods, as well? Since we've established that healthcare is not an "important object," clearly you think that Congress can require citizens to buy unimportant objects. Do you believe, in theory, that Congress could require every American adult to buy a slinky? What about an Xbox 360?

I think the individual mandate does present an interesting Constitutional question. I think it could certainly fit within those things necessary and proper to implement the national healthcare system (which is something that's "general welfare-y," to borrow illram's phrase), but it's at least a question. Single-payer, which I support, is much easier.

My point was that Cleo's quote didn't really help his case, because if it's true, then it would contradict his position in this whole debate by making healthcare unimportant.

It doesn't help my case if you accept your assumption that the level of abstraction with which Marshall was considering "important objects" necessarily includes something like "healthcare." If, however, you read the Constitution, you will soon see that it includes "the general welfare" as something for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend, of which it's hardly a stretch to consider "healthcare" a part.

Clever, though.

Cleo

 

[Princeps]

The Constitution, ineffect, says "Congress has control over this, this, and this, and can make laws to regulate/ban/control them." It does not mean "Congress and go these things, but also random other things that we decided not to talk about." If it meant that, then what's the point of listing anything that Congress could do? Everyone could just read into what they wanted! You're effectively giving the federal government unlimited reach.

Again, the constitution doesnt say very much about what the federal government isn't allowed to do, nor does it explicitly say that the federal government isn't allowed to do anything the constitution doesn't mention. Indeed, the constitution doesn't even mention health care as a specific item of intervension because health care in the form that we have it today didn't really even exist. So of course the founding fathers could not have mentioned that. But health insurance is a form of commercial activity.

Honestly, this debate disgusts me. I really understand the need to get more people insured, but the blatant disrespect so many people, here and elsewhere, have for the Constitution disgusts me. Think of a better rationale than "We think Congress should be able to....so they can! Whee!"

I have a lot more appreciation for a democratic government than a piece of hemp paper written by dead people, even if it supports my argument. A logical state should be a democracy by the living for the living.

 

[bhsup]

How in hell are you guys blowing off the 10th with such wild abandon?

 

[illram]

Because this is a power delegated to Congress?

 

[bhsup]

I can't argue with revisionists... How you guys can so bloat a phrase is beyond me.

 

[illram]

I can't argue with revisionists... How you guys can so bloat a phrase is beyond me.

General welfare? How am I bloating it? What do you think that means?

 

[bhsup]

Obviously a reference to the specifically enumerated powers.