Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
We do have a Constitution and it includes the General Welfare clause, which has been decided (by a non-stacked SCOTUS) to include things like social programs. It's constitutional according to the court, therefore it's constitutional. Everything else is simply opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, but you're suggesting your opinion in fact when it's not.
The opinions that matter when it comes to the law are the opinions of a majority of the Supreme Court when the judgment came. Maybe in the future a bench will decide otherwise, but for the time being that's the way it is, and it very likely extends to things like federal health care.
It'd be nice if it were 1945 and we were trying single-payer on a state-by-state basis, but 45,000 Americans a year are dying because of an inept/corrupt private insurance system. How you can argue that the government is protecting the general welfare by not providing a service that would save fifteen times the amount of lives lost on 9/11 is beyond me.
|
You know, that is all and well, until you consider that those constitution-defying decisions were influenced under threat of 'packing' the court with Justices who WILL ratify the legislation.
So it goes something like this:
1.) During the depression era, Congress passes a bunch of new bills.
2.) Many of the bills are struck down as unconstitutional.
3.) FDR and congress are pissed, so they come up with the idea of putting as many as 15 justices on the Bench--thereby effectively overruling the Supreme Court.
4.) Supreme Court finally relents and allows the new bills to stand.
It is right to say, "Yes, the SCOTUS decides and that's how it is." But it's also worth noting that sometimes, the SCOTUS is not above politics in deciding what is best for the nation.
I'm all for universal healthcare. But proceed cautiously!