Board Thread:Watercooler 2.0/@comment-6198648-20130228045108/@comment-6191693-20130717192926

RE: Yet another healthcare debate

You're putting words in my mouth...er, my fingers, because this is a typed debate.

What I said was that the "Necessary and Proper Clause" was the Founders' way of admitting that they couldn't foresee everything and that, sometime down the line, it may become necessary for the government to have a power that is not explicitly stated. It does not grant them unlimited power; it is the Supreme Court's job to make sure that it is not abused. That is the purpose of "checks and balances."

Has it been abused anyway? Yes, of course. Have some SCOTUS members (*cough* John Roberts *cough*) been crooked, or even evil? Yes. That's one of the many reasons why I think the American people should have more say in who gets to be a Supreme Court Justice -- if not in the actual selection process, we should at least be allowed to fire them if they have proven to be too partisan or corrupt. Most people are also unaware that the American public has the ability to pass their own amendments, without Congress, and even if they did, it's a daunting task and people are easily discouraged, especially these days.

You said that I suggested that the Constitution should be violated/ignored to pass something necessary and then an amendment be passed retroactively as a formality. This is absolutely not what I said and is based on the assumption that universal healthcare is even in violation of the Constitution, which it is not. What I said is that the possibility for universal healthcare is provided for by the NaPC and that the Supreme Court has already backed that up. I also said that an amendment is necessary to solidify such a provision to eliminate any confusion or points to debate in the future. In other words, the current SCOTUS has upheld its legality, but a future one may not, so, in order to protect it as a right that cannot be taken away, an amendment must be passed. The same is true for the granting of federal money to support public schools and colleges -- the legal situation is much the same.

That being said, while I agree with 90% of the PPACA (a.k.a. "Obamacare"), I do believe that it is unconstitutional and the result of corruption within both Congress and the SCOTUS to mandate that we give money to private insurance corporations for what should be a human right (another reason why we should be allowed to fire our justices, IMO, and why we should be more willing to take the initiative to pass our own amendments). However, one redeeming thing about it is that the PPACA does allow for the individual states to pass their own healthcare bills that would replace the federal one; the federal one is really only there to establish a minimum requirement that we need to be provided, sort of like the federal minimum wage and federal vehicle safety and emissions regulations (all three also being things not explicitly named in the Constitution). For example, "Romneycare" in Massachusetts provides more for residents there than does the federal plan, so the federal plan does not apply there. If people really had such a problem with the federal plan, the simplest solution is to just pass a better state plan, rather than trying to get the federal plan repealed with no alternative to take its place. A state universal healthcare plan would also be 100% permitted, no contest, by the US Constitution and its only limits would possibly be that particular states' constitution. Short of passing an amendment to fortify the legality of the federal plan, state plans would be necessary, if not ideal.

We have learned time and again, though, that things like human rights should not be left up to the states -- that certain federal minimums need to be in place, whether it's for voting rights, workplace safety (OSHA), standard of living (minimum wage, etc.), education, healthcare, workplace discrimination, road and vehicle safety, pollution controls, or whatever.