Obama finally called them out

[patandchickens]

Can you give an example of anything the Consitution actually is required as a right to give someone except an equal chance?

(First paragraph edited, and additional material at end of post added, because, on fifth reading, I suddenly thought 'oh, she means what are physical things the gov't is required to physically give people'... yes?)

The body of the Constitution is really mostly about setting up the basic structure of the government, not about what is or isn't cool for the gov't to do. The Bill of Rights is where most of that stuff resides, and to a lesser extent the later amendments.

Some things that the Constitution labels as peoples "rights" (not exhaustive - this is just what came to mind overnight, plus a quick trot through the document):

the right to assemble peaceably
the right to free religion
the right to petition the gov't for redress of grievances
the right of the people to keep and bear arms
the right to freedom from unreasonable search/seizure
the right to speedy and fair trial
the right to vote irrespective of race, color, sex, or tax payment

And... here is the biggie, Article IX of the body of the Constitution itself:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (translation: "there are other rights the people have that are not specified here")

The Constitution is a wonderful mix of set principles and *flexibility*, allowing for it to be applied as society sees fit over the years although always within the broad limits of the framework.

And applying a document to real-world situations, in a changing world, is never ever a simple or unanimous thing. Heck, every religion has its own strong 'cottage industry' of scholars in its particular holy book(s), precisely BECAUSE something written a good while ago is never quite specific enough about today's world and different people DO have different ideas about how things should apply.

As far as what the gov't is required to "give" people -- the Constitution is not a bookkeeping detail oriented document. The whole (and clever) point of its architecture is to set forth GOALS that then require the writing of nitpicky precise laws to implement.

But it does say the purpose of the document is to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" and that the government can levy taxes in order "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

Does providing a certain baseline of healthcare (with people differing in opinion of course on what's merely baseline and what's optional luxury) count as "ensuring domestic tranquility", "promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty", and/or "providing for the general welfare of the United States"? As with any document interpretation, you can have different opinions. But there is certainly AMPLE reason there to support one POSSIBLE interpretation as being "yes, it does". I do not think there is good evidence for claiming there is *no* justification for gov't funded healthcare... even if you do not personally think that, on the balance, it is the *best* interpretation of what's written.

Pat

 

[Wifezilla]

People who lose their homes and go bankrupt over medical costs and yet THIS is the thing that is going to cause a revolution in this country? I just don't get it.

I went bankrupt due to medical costs under the Clinton administration. The tipping point isn't new. For many years, republicans still believed their party was working for them. They know better now. Plus more people know how to blog, how to use meet up, how to use facebook, etc... Plus they get their news is vastly different way now too. This has been a long time coming and as much as people try to portray this is "they hate Obama", that isn't it. We hate ALL the politicians, the slow erosion of our rights and freedoms under both dems and repubs, the lying, the corruption, etc...

Obama was just the one that got stuck holding the hot potato. He didn't start the game though.

 

[me&thegals]

I just find it odd the the "tipping point" comes under this president who is only trying to help our own people who need help so desperately. Odd that the "tipping point" wasn't during the last administration when we were sending billions and billions to fight a war that was unnecessary and made many of that president's friends quite rich.
...............I just don't get it.

Thank you. This is my question, too. I understand we on this site have different political viewpoints and beliefs, but it stuns me the animosity towards political decisions being made right now when this HUGE, enormous problem started years ago, under you-know-who's watch. I find it strange that all of you were not outraged when billions upon billions were being sent to Iraq with NO WAY of paying it back. Now, when some is being proposed for healthcare it is suddenly unconscionable.

 

[me&thegals]

The Constitution is a wonderful mix of set principles and *flexibility*, allowing for it to be applied as society sees fit over the years although always within the broad limits of the framework.

That's what I LOVE about our political framework. I am in awe of the wisdom of our founding fathers in setting up our government the way they did. Even though they were submerged in the system of slavery, they created a gov't that would eventually abolish what even they depended on, as all rights were accounted for.

So, maybe we can consider this. At the time the founding documents were written, slavery thrived. For all the reasons we know of, it eventually was fought to its death and collapsed.

Maybe healthcare and gun safety fall under that example. Maybe since automatic weapons were not created at the time of the constitution, we can now in our own present wisdom and reasoning argue for safer standards for them.

Maybe since people didn't expect long life and cure of disease back then as much as we do now, we can agree that we have come to a new understanding of human rights as they pertain to healthcare.

After all, there was no "right" being denied a 18th century person who did not receive treatment for cancer, because there presumably WAS no treatment for cancer.

Today, however, to have the treatment for disease and turn a person away, to allow them to suffer, to die, simply because they do not have enough money--it is hard to imagine that our founding fathers would have seen that as okay in the spirit in which they wrote our constitution.

 

[Quail_Antwerp]

I just find it odd the the "tipping point" comes under this president who is only trying to help our own people who need help so desperately. Odd that the "tipping point" wasn't during the last administration when we were sending billions and billions to fight a war that was unnecessary and made many of that president's friends quite rich.
...............I just don't get it.

Thank you. This is my question, too. I understand we on this site have different political viewpoints and beliefs, but it stuns me the animosity towards political decisions being made right now when this HUGE, enormous problem started years ago, under you-know-who's watch. I find it strange that all of you were not outraged when billions upon billions were being sent to Iraq with NO WAY of paying it back. Now, when some is being proposed for healthcare it is suddenly unconscionable.

Here's the thing, I've been against this war in Iraq from the start...BUT I have two brothers who both have served over there, one who's currently still active duty and just finished his 4th tour over there...I have cousins in Iraq, Afganistan, and a cousin that was killed in Bagdad.

I can be against this war, and STILL support the troops. My family in the services, the others who are serving THEY have my support....Supporting our troops doesn't mean I support the war. I was against Bush and everything he was doing.

I'm pretty much against any politician and their agendas, because that's what it is, their agendas.

Our government is supposed to be FOR the people OF the people and BY the people. I say, it's time THE PEOPLE took control back of our government.

 

[me&thegals]

I have 2 cousins in Iraq right now. I completely support them and hope the gov't is giving their units enough money to outfit them to be as safe as possible. I hope they and your family make it through safely.

I STILL don't believe we belong there and have a really hard time seeing how those billions and billions could not have been better used. It's hard to think about how many people could have been fed, clothed and treated for health problems with that money rather than creating an unstable region, death and destruction.

I think our gov't needs to think MUCH more carefully about repercussions down the road, have a plan when entering a war for exiting a war and rethink priorities. That is what I am seeing with the new administration. I would much rather see $ headed for foreign aid, domestic healthcare and a new green manufacturing sector than war.

 

[Quail_Antwerp]

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the whole we blow it up, then we pay to rebuild what we blew up.

I'm sorry, but if some other country bombed us, do you think we'd be seeing them sending in their own people to rebuild what they destroyed???

Uh, NO.

 

[Big Daddy]

Thank You Pat

You actually found a section of the constitution that applies more or less directly to health care. The right of the government to collect taxes to promote tranquility and the welfare of the people. Health care fits right in there quite nicely. So now I know where to point when people say the constitution doesn't say anything about health care.

Bankrupt because of health care during the Clinton years. I guess that was the reason he and Hillary were fighting for a health care overhaul back then. The Dems have been fighting for health care reform since Truman.

As for the war in Iraq. After 911 Bush promised us he would get Bin Laden. He went to Afghanistan long enough to kill a few of the Taliban. Then he went after his real objective. Finish the job that Daddy started. As is often the case, Daddy was a lot smarter than Sonny Boy. He had a reason for stopping when he did. I'm sure Sonny knew the reason but decided it didn't matter. He had the perfect storm, so he too advantage of it. An American public lusting for revenge. Now 8 years later a country lies in ruins with a big chunk of it's population dead. Mllions displaced and over 4000 American dead. I don't even have a clue how many are missing limbs or have brain damage from IED concussions. Not to mention all the soldiers that will never be the same after witnessing the horrors of war. Too what purpose? To make money for Bush and his cronies and to stroke Bush and Cheneys egos. I would say that he and Cheney should be investigated further and tried. This country couldn't handle it though.

OK Rant over.

 

[patandchickens]

The sticky point, BD, is what exactly it means to levy taxes "To provide for the <snip> general Welfare of the United States". That is, probably intentionally if you ask me, a great big fuzzy ball o' not much detail.

First there is the question of what 'general welfare' means and where it stops. How well must things fare in order to be adequate? And then there is the question of how this is to be applied, to the welfare of the union of the states, or to the welfare of the people *of* the united states, or all points along the continuum in between.

As much as some people might like to pretend that the Constitution is very definite as to what the government is or is not to do, in reality, it is just a "mission statement" as it were (and organizational map, and procedural rules) -- the task of operationalizing those principles, and deciding where the details fall, was (again, I suspect intentionally) left up to the people and their elected government.

Pat

 

[Big Daddy]

The sticky point, BD, is what exactly it means to levy taxes "To provide for the <snip> general Welfare of the United States". That is, probably intentionally if you ask me, a great big fuzzy ball o' not much detail.

First there is the question of what 'general welfare' means and where it stops. How well must things fare in order to be adequate? And then there is the question of how this is to be applied, to the welfare of the union of the states, or to the welfare of the people *of* the united states, or all points along the continuum in between.

As much as some people might like to pretend that the Constitution is very definite as to what the government is or is not to do, in reality, it is just a "mission statement" as it were (and organizational map, and procedural rules) -- the task of operationalizing those principles, and deciding where the details fall, was (again, I suspect intentionally) left up to the people and their elected government.

Pat

Precisely.

However if it can be draped clockwise around a person to support their feelings about how government should be run. Then I can drape it counterclockwise to support my feelings.

Yes the Constitution is just a framework. Tranquility and well being could mean anything. It's all in how a person wants to interpret it. I believe they did that on purpose since they were wise enough to know that they would never know what the future would bring. The Constitution is structured in such a way that it will fit different forms of government too. Who knows what the future will bring. Whatever it is I'm sure it will fit within the framework of our Constitution.