"...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution
the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof...."
The SCOTUS ruled that the federal government could not use the "neccessary and proper" clause to compel the states to expand Medicaid coverage. They didn't say the law itself was unconsitutional or that the federal government didn't have the authority to reform the healthcare system or to pass or enact the ACA or even to compel individual citizens to pay for health insurance. They only ruled on whether the federal government could force the states to expand Medicaid coverage. Consequently, a lot of states opted out of expanding Medicaid coverage but they still have to follow the rest of the law.
Also found in Federalist Paper #45.....
"..If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.....
The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens..."
On the employees behalf. If the employees had a union, a union rep would have a say in what contracts are made on the employees behalf.
The company might be able to negotiate lower costs for the premiums if they have more employees to add to the pool. Thats the same idea behind ACA.
The people expect the government to control costs of health care.
The commerce clause is an expressed authority given to congress to regulate interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is anything that is sold across state lines....and insurance is sold across state lines as are many medical services, products, devices and even doctors work across state lines now. So if an individual or company sells or buys anything from across a state line the federal government has the authority to regulate it.
So what does the law consider "involunatry servitude"?
Civil Rights Division Home Page
None of that seems to apply to you....or me.
It's hillarious that you would compare providing health care to "forced labor or involuntary servitude". lol
congress can create laws, which concern the
foregoing powers[article 1 section 8], they cannot make any law they please.
under the articles of confederation, the states were at war with each other in the area of commerce, state governments were creating trade barriers and trade wars, this was bringing commerce to a stand still.
under the constitution the federal government was given authority to regulate that commerce among the states, to stop those barriers and wars, it was not given authority to regulate inside a state.
healthcare is not a power of government.... neither is education or housing....so you see congress is creating unconstitutional laws.
history for you......during the constitutional convention it was proposed that the federal government be involved in education...it was rejected by the convention...so how can it be a federal power?
involuntary servitude...would be if government forced you to provide a good or a service to another person or entity.........goverment is using the tax clause for healthcare, saying its you dont buy it ...its a tax!
James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
22 Jan. 1788
The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce
between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience.
The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress [under articles of confederation]have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them.????
and your point is????.....under the Constitution of the founders, there is no income, tax, citizens are taxed based on a voluntary action...trade!
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792
The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson,
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798
This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83
No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a
supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else
should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A
power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted,
too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other
thing not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or
by fair implication.--Hamilton, Report on manufactures
