|
The healthcare issue, as it has been since day one, is federalism vs. anti-federalism. DK interprets the General Welfare clause through the lens of the anti-federalists and people like, say, me, view it more from a federalist perspective. Because that's an argument that's simply not going to be won, though, the issue has to simply be stripped of ideology down to the brass tax (no pun intended) of what's best for the country. We already have plenty of threads on the merits of something like single-payer, so I'll leave that conversation there.
Thinking of the General Welfare clause in a wider scope, though, requires one not just to read the scribbled notes of the founding fathers, but also the case law dealing with it. The judicial, after all, is responsible for rendering the official interpretation of a given law. FDR's new deal was given the stamp of approval from the Supreme Court, therefore those powers are not unconstitutional. Whether one agrees with those judges or not, for now it's legal. The Supreme Court adopted a more expansive view of the General Welfare clause than most anti-federalists are comfortable with. You can call it fascism or tyranny or Christmas, but it's not unconstitutional, at least not until there's another ruling on it.
|