Beldar

Illinois Senator Roland Burris was asked to specify which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to implement an individual mandate on individuals to buy health insurance. Burris' answer? It is the responsibility of the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."

Here's the quote: "Well, that's under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country ... That's under the Constitution. We're not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."

The word "health" does not appear in the Constitution.

Lergnom

Well, gee, if that's the reasoning then I guess you win!

But of course that's just a silly game of picking little irrelevant bits and then claiming they're important. Like the moronic tax protestors who say they don't have to pay taxes because it's not in the Constitution - and it isn't, if you are looking for an INDIVIDUAL MANDATE to pay taxes. The 16th Amendment speaks only of taxes on incomes not being required to be apportioned among the states, but still I've seen tax protestors sent to prison.

PrincipalV

If you're going to think about it that way--socialized healthcare is welfare.

AUTransfer

This is actually a post? Really?

There are quite a lot of things not in the Constitution that have been passed, and you know what?

We're all still here.

It isn't even socialized medicine really. The single-payer system was never really in debate and the public option is so watered down that it is going to cause more problems than if people like you just sat down and shut up in the first place. The Republican proposal costs more, only insures 3 million more people, outlaws abortion and kicks all illegals out of the country if they wander into an ER needing treatment. Of the two: I'm going with socialism -- mostly because it says I can stay on my parent's healthcare if I choose to go to Grad school, and I can stop paying less than guys do for yearly cancer screenings.

(Also, I know someone who not only doesn't understand it, but doesn't even know what it is, Senator Boehner reading from the nonexistant preamble from the Constitution (ie. Declaration) yesterday at the tea party protest er...press conference.)

bluebayou

Lergnom:

I concur. But I did read one self-proclaimed liberal law professor (whose specialty was constitutional law) that said a case can be made that the mandated health care tax is different bcos its a tax on citizenship. He wrote an op-ed piece that suggested that mandated health care could require an Amendment, as did the income tax. His point was that every other federal requirement was essentially voluntary: you don't have to pay the gas tax if you don't drive; you don't have to accept Medicare when you turn 65; you don't pay income taxes if you don't have income; etc. In contrast, the House bill says that you must purchase health care or pay a fee/tax....there is nothing voluntary about it.

Not saying I agree, but I thought it was an interesting discussion.

limabeans

Anyone ever hear of the program/competition among top high schools kids called, "We The People"? The students focus on a particular issue of the Constitution (like its philosophy), study applicable court cases, and over the course of the year become experts of this piece of history.

The competition starts within each State, then the "best" of each State travel to DC and compete among the top fifty there. It's an intense combination of US History, law, and debate skills.

My son participated in this and his understanding of the Constitution is phenomenal. This year he is a "coach". If your school ever offers this, jump at the opportunity. You'd never ask, "The Constitution - Ah, Who Really Needs or Understands It?"

PrincipalV

He was being sarcastic. His point was wrong, but he certainly is not implying that the Constitution is unnecessary.

Yankee Belle

AU Transfer: Boehner screwed up or misspoke, take your pick. But what of you saying the preamble to the Constitution is nonexistent, while criticizing someone else's mistake. Where did you learn that false infomation?

Anyone who was a kid in the 70's should know the words and tune. Google The Preamble if you don't know what it says, or that it even exists.

I do like your tolerant attitude of telling people to sit down and shut up. Long live diversity until it comes to diversity of opinion. I love the new uniting influence Obama has had on the country. And if you feel bad about paying less than a guy's cancer screening, why don't you donate one to someone who can't afford it?

Hunt

Perhaps Burris thought health might be part of "the general welfare." Of course, I must bow to others who know exactly what is and isn't included in that phrase.

member

There are classes and books written on what the term welfare means in the constitution. No researcher has every claimed it is the same welfare that we speak of today(welfare social program) or health care.

PrincipalV

Read the definition of welfare. Or if you disagree link me an article stating otherwise.

member

sadly definitions change over the years. We cant expect the word to have the same meaning and terms 233 years later, The social dynamics of socirty are also incredibly different now than then. Especially since government was seen as evil then and is loved and praised now.

AUTransfer

Yankee Belle: In my frustration, I made a few mistakes. I was commenting that the words that Sen. Boehner spoke were nonexistent. I was raised on School House Rock and am well aware that the preamble to the Constitution does exists. And women pay MORE than men every year because we're more likely to visit the doctor on a yearly basis.

As to my tolerance level: I like diversity, it lets me know that the system is working. But not doing your job, because you don't like what the other party is doing, is crap. Pick almost any poll you want -- a majority of Americans want a public option, particularly those in the red, southern states with the highest number of uninsured and least effective healthcare systems. Their representatives persistently vote no, despite what all the polls say. I am of the opinion that the more people you have putting input into an idea, the better the outcome of the idea will be. All they do is whine from talking points -- or going full weapons grade crazy and saying that Muslims are trying to infiltrate the government to Congressional Internships. Then after all that whining, the Republican options a) aren't viable at all, and don't even include numbers or b) cost more and are less effective than the Democratic option.

I've had it with bipartisanship. I was all for it after the election, Yay unity! I'm sick of the fact that Democrats make concession after concession to get Republicans on board and then they don't even vote for it. It's ridiculous. Democrats took single-payer off the table at the very beginning, knowing it would upset Republicans and insurance companies. Massive infrastructure was left out of the stimulus because it was more government and that upset Republicans, it is too small and they compromised it down to appease Republicans. The CBO came out and said that a more robust public option would have been 85 Billion LESS than what the House just passed last night. If a few more of their vocal members back away from the ledge, I'll be oh so happy to start being bipartisan again -- until then, they lost, by overwhelming majorities. They lost in 2008 and the lost last Tuesday when the Democrats took back another house seat on last Tuesday, one they held since the civil war, which was another vote for the public option. If they get a good idea, I'll be happy to hear it.