• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support single-payer health care?

Do you support single-payer health care?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 43.7%

  • No

    Votes: 36 50.7%

  • Maybe, if

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Total voters
    71
Goobieman said:
Thus, my final point, that you did not address:

If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

If you believe this interpretation is correct, then explain the inclusion of the other 16 clauses in the article, as the interpretation you describe eliminates the need for same.

This is why the Hamiltonian view fails and the Madisonian view prevails.
Click to expand...

Those 16 clauses were explicit examples of the kinds of powers extended by the constitution. They were not exhaustive, however. The Articles of Confederation limited Congress to "expressly delegated" powers. This was removed in the Constitution.

Thus the Hamiltonian view is the dominant view and prevails.
 
Goobieman said:
I do, peanut - and they do nothing to support the noted interpretation.
Click to expand...
I was testing you, boo.

The rules don't provide a way to resolve a case where a law provides a broad grant of authority over a particular subject matter, and then turns around and provides a list of specific powers, suggesting that the broad grant was just for amusement.

At the time the constitution was made, the population of the U. S. was divided on the question of whether the government should have limited authority or unlimited powers. The lawmakers wrote both views into the Powers of Congress section of the Constitution, so that the issue would be settled by the political process. The limited government view prevailed at first. However, when the unlimited view came to be the prevailing view, it could also be supported by the ambiguous provisions regarding the Powers of Congress.
 
reefedjib said:
Those 16 clauses were explicit examples of the kinds of powers extended by the constitution. They were not exhaustive, however.
Click to expand...
This is unsupportable, both by the discussion at the time, and because of the aregument I presented -- if what you posit is true, then none of those clauses are necessary and are a wasted of time, space and effort.

So, why did the founders put them there?
And then, given the argument regarding the bill of rights that gave birth to the 9th amendment, why were they ratified?

Essentially, if you support the Hamiltonian view and the court decisions that us it, you're arguing that Congress can do whatever it wants, so long as it does so under the guise of what, upon its own determination, relates to the 'general welfare' or 'common defense', and, further, the fact that there are actual, specified powers, means nothing, put there for decoration.

Thus the Hamiltonian view is the dominant view and prevails.
Click to expand...
The Hamiltonian view 'prevails' only pursuant to an appeal to authority.
 
Whip Comes Down said:
I was testing you, boo.
The rules don't provide a way to resolve a case where a law provides a broad grant of authority over a particular subject matter, and then turns around and provides a list of specific powers...
Click to expand...
There was no broad grant of power; there was a specific grant among other specific grants.
 
Goobieman said:
This is unsupportable, both by the discussion at the time, and because of the aregument I presented -- if what you posit is true, then none of those clauses are necessary and are a wasted of time, space and effort.
Click to expand...

But it is supported by my other comment, that got lost:
The Articles of Confederation limited Congress to "expressly delegated" powers. This was removed in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Explain that.

I'll agree to 1) The explicit clauses are unnecessary under the Hamilton view, except as perhaps the starter laws, as the government first forms. It does provide a way to have unlimited government.

Goobieman said:
So, why did the founders put them there?
And then, given the argument regarding the bill of rights that gave birth to the 9th amendment, why were they ratified?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the 9th amendment has to do with this - it is dealing with explicit and implicit rights, not powers. Please explain.

Goobieman said:
Essentially, if you support the Hamiltonian view and the court decisions that us it, you're arguing that Congress can do whatever it wants, so long as it does so under the guise of what, upon its own determination, relates to the 'general welfare' or 'common defense', and, further, the fact that there are actual, specified powers, means nothing, put there for decoration.
Click to expand...

I'll agree again 2) that this interpretation provides unlimited power. It had best be used responsibly.

Goobieman said:
The Hamiltonian view 'prevails' only pursuant to an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

Once again 3) I agree. A SCOTUS of the right view could overturn a lot of legislation, but I think that each piece of legislation would have to be brought independently, no?
 
reefedjib said:
But it is supported by my other comment, that got lost:
Explain that.
Click to expand...
The articles of Confederation are irrelevant, especially any given clause taken in space. They did not work for a miltitude of reasons; citing the deletion of one clause from the AoC to the Constitution doesnt mean anything regarding the intent of the Constitution.

I'll agree to 1) The explicit clauses are unnecessary under the Hamilton view, except as perhaps the starter laws, as the government first forms.
Click to expand...
Under your argument, they are unnecessary, period.
Under your argument, all that was necessary is the 1st and last clause.
And yet, there are 16 more. Why? If the intent was to create a goverment with virtually ulimited power, why include those 16 clauses?

I don't know what the 9th amendment has to do with this - it is dealing with explicit and implicit rights, not powers. Please explain.
Click to expand...
The primary argument against the bill of rights was that by specifying certain rights in such a bill the implication was that these were the only rights held by the people. This led to the 9th amendment, whuch states this is not the case.

This is an example of the midset of the people creating the constitution -- 'all that's there is what is specified' - that by specifying certain powers in a section described as 'the powers of Congress', the implication was that these were the only powers held by congress.

If there was any thought that the Constitution was intended to confer virtually unlimited power to Congress, there would have been a similar discussion regarding those 16 superflous powers, in that they might be construed to mean that these were the only powers Congress was to have.

Thus, the inclusion of those powers defeats the argument that the intent was to that virtually unlimited power.

And the, there's the 10th amendment:
If the federal government was to have unlimited power, what powers then are reserved to the states? Under ths 'unlimited power' argument, the 10th amendment is meaningless.

I'll agree again 2) that this interpretation provides unlimited power.
Click to expand...
This then clearly the argument is unsound, as a federal government with 'unlimited power' is what the constitution was intended to avoid.

Once again 3) I agree.
Click to expand...
So you agree that the implementation of the Hamiltonian view by the court is nothing more than a 'because we said so'.
Given that, why support it?
 
Goobieman said:
Why? If the intent was to create a goverment with virtually ulimited power, why include those 16 clauses?
Click to expand...

I do not know. Good question.

Goobieman said:
So you agree that the implementation of the Hamiltonian view by the court is nothing more than a 'because we said so'.
Given that, why support it?
Click to expand...

Because it gets me what I want. It is the lower standard, requiring a majority in the House and Senate to pass a law providing healthcare for all. If we have to go the proper course, in light of a more restrictive General Welfare Clause, then I would need a Constitutional Amendment to get mandatory healthcare, correct?

That said, I am awfully worried about the growth in entitlement spending. In another thread, for 2009 I computed $660 billion for DOD and GWOT, and $1.7 for entitlements (SS, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment) and growing.
 
reefedjib said:
I do not know. Good question.
Click to expand...
Its one I think I'd want answered before I embrace the argument.

Because it gets me what I want.
Click to expand...
HA!
You do know that's not a sound argument, right?
Tell me: What argument do you have to counter the 'unlimited power' argument when its something that you do NOT want?

If we have to go the proper course, in light of a more restrictive General Welfare Clause, then I would need a Constitutional Amendment to get mandatory healthcare, correct?
Click to expand...
You are correct.
The amendment process, BTW, is another argument against the 'unlimited power' argument.
 
Goobieman said:
HA!
You do know that's not a sound argument, right?
Click to expand...

If it works, it works. :)

Goobieman said:
Tell me: What argument do you have to counter the 'unlimited power' argument when its something that you do NOT want?
Click to expand...

Yours is a pretty good argument if you can get Congress and SCOTUS to abide by it.

I thought of a way to enforce a more restrictive General Welfare Clause other than a SCOTUS decision. You could pass an amendment that locks in the enumerated powers. Then we would need an amendment for healthcare, welfare, social security. Again, I think these things should be handled at the state level, but with the federal government helping to pay for them to make them 'mandatory'.
 
reefedjib said:
If it works, it works.
Click to expand...
Until they want to do someting you disagree with - then you're left with nothing to say.

Yours is a pretty good argument if you can get Congress and SCOTUS to abide by it.
Click to expand...
Its a sound argument, period.
 
Goobieman said:
Under your argument, they are unnecessary, period.Under your argument, all that was necessary is the 1st and last clause. And yet, there are 16 more. Why? If the intent was to create a goverment with virtually ulimited power, why include those 16 clauses?
Click to expand...
If the intent of the 16 clauses was to limit the powers of Congress to those enumerated in the clauses, why did they include a clause that could easily be construed to grant almost unlimited power?

Dude, the lawmakers weren't stupid. The Constitution was written ambiguously so the details could be worked out in the political process. Otherwise, they would have never gotten it adopted.
 
Goobieman said:
Under your argument, they are unnecessary, period.
Under your argument, all that was necessary is the 1st and last clause.
And yet, there are 16 more. Why? If the intent was to create a goverment with virtually ulimited power, why include those 16 clauses?
Click to expand...

It's a good question to be honest, but you can ask the reverse question as well. If those were the only powers congress was to be given, why put in the 'to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States' clause and muddy the waters? Why not come right out and say that the powers listed are to be the only powers given to congress.

Instead, I think the 16 specific powers listed are intended to be the minimum powers retained by congress under all circumstances. They can have others, but never less than those 16.

Goobieman said:
This is an example of the midset of the people creating the constitution -- 'all that's there is what is specified' - that by specifying certain powers in a section described as 'the powers of Congress', the implication was that these were the only powers held by congress.
Click to expand...

This is clearly not universally true. Hamilton helped create it, and he argued that those were not the only powers held by congress.

Goobieman said:
If there was any thought that the Constitution was intended to confer virtually unlimited power to Congress, there would have been a similar discussion regarding those 16 superflous powers, in that they might be construed to mean that these were the only powers Congress was to have.

Thus, the inclusion of those powers defeats the argument that the intent was to that virtually unlimited power.
Click to expand...

An equally plausible argument is that the general welfare clause does grant much broader power to congress and the 16 specific powers listed were to be the minimum powers it had.


To be quite honest, I think that that particular section of the constitution (as well as several others) was written to be ambiguous on purpose. The people who wrote it were all smart enough to realize that in the future, situations would come up that they couldn't have conceived of when the document was written, and that dealing with them might require some flexibility in the constitution. A little ambiguity gives the people of the country the room to interpret it in whatever way they decide is best.
 
gabehwkns said:
I'm curious how many people on this forum support single-payer health care and why or why not. I understand that there are many small groups of people spread out over the United States that support single-payer, but they aren't able to make much noise.

So, do you support single-payer health care, and why or why not?
Click to expand...

No I don't support it.

You can't have major medical advances, low cost and timely care with a single payer system.
Most of them rely on waiting times and old treatments to keep costs low.
 
molten_dragon said:
It's a good question to be honest...
Click to expand...
If you cannot answer it, you should question your support for the argument.

...but you can ask the reverse question as well. If those were the only powers congress was to be given, why put in the 'to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States' clause and muddy the waters?
Click to expand...
That you can do this in no way nullifies my point.
That said, the reverse question is easily answered - it explains why congress was given the power to tax and spend; said preamble, gives no more power to the governmen than does the actual preamble to the Constituion.

Why not come right out and say that the powers listed are to be the only powers given to congress.
Click to expand...
They did.
When something says you "shall have the power to..." and lists a number of powers, anything not found in that list is not a power you shall have.

Instead, I think the 16 specific powers listed are intended to be the minimum powers retained by congress under all circumstances. They can have others, but never less than those 16.
Click to expand...
This is unsupportable, especially given the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument. Under that argument, all of these powers are already included, as they all relate to the general welfare and/or common defense.

This is clearly not universally true. Hamilton helped create it, and he argued that those were not the only powers held by congress.
Click to expand...
Hamilton was first among those that argued against the bill of rights, for the reason I supplied - that to specifically list certain rights would lead to the denial of those not listed.

In that light, if he did indeed hold that the enumeratesd powers were not the only powers of Congress, where are his argument against the enumeration of powers itself, in that specifying certain powers in a section described as 'the powers of Congress' denotes that these were the only powers held by congress, and would then lead to the denial of those not listed?


An equally plausible argument is that the general welfare clause does grant much broader power to congress and the 16 specific powers listed were to be the minimum powers it had.
Click to expand...
This is unsupportable, especially given the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument. Under that argument, all of these powers are already included, as they all relate to the general welfare and/or common defense.

To be quite honest, I think that that particular section of the constitution (as well as several others) was written to be ambiguous on purpose.
Click to expand...
To be quite honest, the only people that see ambuguity are those that want the Federal Government to do something that they know it has not been given the power to do -- thus, the 'general welfare' argument.

The people who wrote it were all smart enough to realize that in the future, situations would come up that they couldn't have conceived of when the document was written...
Click to expand...
I fully agree - That's why they included Amendment X and Article V.
 
Last edited:
Social security and medicare are un-constitutional?
 
Goobieman said:
Its a sound argument, period.
Click to expand...

If you can get SCOTUS/Congress to agree. It looks like they are going to run with Hamilton's interpretation, though.
 
reefedjib said:
If you can get SCOTUS/Congress to agree. It looks like they are going to run with Hamilton's interpretation, though.
Click to expand...
This is an appeal to authority.
 
Goobieman said:
This is an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

No it is ambiguous. SCOTUS has already weighed in on the side of Hamilton. If it wasn't ambiguous, they would have said that no other powers are given. That was the clause from the Articles of Confederation that they ripped out. Therefore, you are arguing an appeal to authority.
 
reefedjib said:
No it is ambiguous.
Click to expand...
You already admited that you cannot address my questions and my argument to that effect. As such, your argument that it is ambiguous is not sound.

SCOTUS has already weighed in on the side of Hamilton. If it wasn't ambiguous, they would have said that no other powers are given.
Click to expand...
This doesn't mean anythng, as the court is certainly able to make decisions based on their own wants and goals rather than look at the merits of any particular argument. That's why its called an 'appeal to auhtority' and why its a logical fallacy.
 
Goobieman said:
You already admited that you cannot address my questions and my argument to that effect. As such, your argument that it is ambiguous is not sound.
Click to expand...

So is yours.

Goobieman said:
This doesn't mean anythng, as the court is certainly able to make decisions based on their own wants and goals rather than look at the merits of any particular argument. That's why its called an 'appeal to auhtority' and why its a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

The same is true for justices that decide in you direction. Since it is ambiguous in the Constitution, they have to interpret based on their own wants and goals.
 
reefedjib said:
So is yours.
Click to expand...
How so? I have suppoted all of my assertions, and I have brought up issues regarding your positions that you cannot/have not addressed.

The same is true for justices that decide in you direction.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the point. All you're doing here is agreeing that the SCotUS decision in this regard does not show that the argument is sound.

Since it is ambiguous in the Constitution...
Click to expand...
It isn't.

they have to interpret based on their own wants and goals.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what theya re NOT supposed to do. The personal preferences of the justices are supposed to play NO role in their decisions.
 
Goobieman said:
If you cannot answer it, you should question your support for the argument.
Click to expand...

I did answer it, as you can see below.

Goobieman said:
That you can do this in no way nullifies my point.
That said, the reverse question is easily answered - it explains why congress was given the power to tax and spend; said preamble, gives no more power to the governmen than does the actual preamble to the Constituion.
Click to expand...

Then why include that explanation if it creates ambiguity in the document (and it does)? If it was truly intended that the listed powers are the only ones that congress has then shouldn't clarity of that point have been more important than a meaningless explanation?

Goobieman said:
They did.
When something says you "shall have the power to..." and lists a number of powers, anything not found in that list is not a power you shall have.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. It can be argued that the way that section is presented implies that those are the only powers held by congress, but that is not explicitly stated.

Goobieman said:
This is unsupportable, especially given the 'unlimited power thru the general welfare clause' argument. Under that argument, all of these powers are already included, as they all relate to the general welfare and/or common defense.
Click to expand...

It is no more unsupportable than the argument that the drafters of the constitution would have intended those 16 powers to be the only ones held by congress and not stated so explicitly.

Goobieman said:
Hamilton was first among those that argued against the bill of rights, for the reason I supplied - that to specifically list certain rights would lead to the denial of those not listed.

In that light, if he did indeed hold that the enumeratesd powers were not the only powers of Congress, where are his argument against the enumeration of powers itself, in that specifying certain powers in a section described as 'the powers of Congress' denotes that these were the only powers held by congress, and would then lead to the denial of those not listed?
Click to expand...

Who knows. Perhaps he did argue against it during the constitutional convention and was overruled. Perhaps that's the reason for the ambiguity; the members of the constitutional convention couldn't agree on how it should be, so they left it open to the interpretation of future generations.


Goobieman said:
To be quite honest, the only people that see ambuguity are those that want the Federal Government to do something that they know it has not been given the power to do -- thus, the 'general welfare' argument.
Click to expand...

Your assumption that there is no ambiguity in the constitution is either hopelessly naive or simply ignorant.
 
Goobieman said:
How so? I have suppoted all of my assertions, and I have brought up issues regarding your positions that you cannot/have not addressed.
Click to expand...

You have repeatedly ignored my pointing out that the Articles of Confederation included a clause that made the enumerated powers all the powers given. This clause was removed for some reason from the Constitution.


Goobieman said:
Irrelevant to the point. All you're doing here is agreeing that the SCotUS decision in this regard does not show that the argument is sound.
Click to expand...

No, there are more than one way to interpret it. It is ambiguous. One SCOTUS may decide one way and a different SCOTUS may decide a different way. You are trying to have previous decisions overturned.

Goobieman said:
It isn't.
Click to expand...

It is.

Goobieman said:
This is exactly what theya re NOT supposed to do. The personal preferences of the justices are supposed to play NO role in their decisions.
Click to expand...

But they do. It is the whole strict constructionist vs loose constructionist litmus test. It is personal opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom