Article 1 section 8. extracted from "Ethanol" thread

[Merantes]

Lots of the ongoing discussion currently in the "Ethanol" thread shifted topics to the Constitution, much of it to Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress. Health care was a major issue. Let's move that conversation to this thread in case anyone still wants to talk about ethanol in the old thread.

In one post, FFA said that Section 8 stated that 'The only Constitutionally "essential" programs are national defense and the courts.; I largely, but not completely agree with that. Section 8 also provides for other things such as the general welfare:

...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

usconstitution.net (The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net) defines welfare as

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well]

It does not say anything about socialized medicine. I do not want socialized medicine. However, to absolutely not provide legislation for health and the other items would also be constitutionally remiss. Maybe regulating the safety and efficacy of drugs (i.e., FDA) is enough. Maybe mandatory treatment for life-threatening illness is enough (and figure out how the patient pays later).

The reasonable question is "how much or little?". Your thoughts?

[Vitiate]

It is highly interesting to our country, and it is the duty of its functionaries, to provide that every citizen in it should receive an education proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life.
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1814

[Freedom for All]

Lots of the ongoing discussion currently in the "Ethanol" thread shifted topics to the Constitution, much of it to Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress. Health care was a major issue. Let's move that conversation to this thread in case anyone still wants to talk about ethanol in the old thread.

In one post, FFA said that Section 8 stated that 'The only Constitutionally "essential" programs are national defense and the courts.; I largely, but not completely agree with that. Section 8 also provides for other things such as the general welfare:

...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

usconstitution.net (The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net) defines welfare as

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well]

It does not say anything about socialized medicine. I do not want socialized medicine. However, to absolutely not provide legislation for health and the other items would also be constitutionally remiss. Maybe regulating the safety and efficacy of drugs (i.e., FDA) is enough. Maybe mandatory treatment for life-threatening illness is enough (and figure out how the patient pays later).

The reasonable question is "how much or little?". Your thoughts?

Oh, no. Proper legislation regarding drugs and medication would be limited to ensuring purity and truth in advertising.

Someone wants a doctor? Let them pay for him out of their own pocket. Under no circumstances does the constitution permit the government to rob me to pay Dr. House. It's totally outside the framework of the intent of both Madison and Hamilton, both of whom said that the "general welfare" clause was included to explain the basis of the specifically delegated powers, and to use it as a justification for expanding congressional power outside those specifically delegated powers would make the listing of specific powers meaningless. Which is exactly what it's done. Congress no longer has limits.

Aren't you all happy about that as you spend your lives whining ceaselessly on the over-arching influence corporations and special influence groups have on the government you've encouraged so well?

SPECIFIC powers means just that and only that, not SPECIFIC PLUS MORE.

[Freedom for All]

It is highly interesting to our country, and it is the duty of its functionaries, to provide that every citizen in it should receive an education proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life.
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1814

Got any clue what "proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life" means?

It means a blacksmith doesn't have to learn how to read.

[Bowerbird]

It does not say anything about socialized medicine. I do not want socialized medicine.

Maybe mandatory treatment for life-threatening illness is enough (and figure out how the patient pays later).

The reasonable question is "how much or little?". Your thoughts?

Don't knock "socialized" medicine until you have tried it.

Interestingly there is not ONE country - no matter how inefficient, or how bad their current health care system is - who would swap it for your system.

[Vitiate]

Got any clue what "proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life" means?

It means a blacksmith doesn't have to learn how to read.

Got any clue why Jefferson wanted to fund public education? You don't know much about your savior do you?

[Freedom for All]

You don't much about your savior do you?

Do I get to pick the verb?

And is Jefferson the Second Coming of Jesus? What's that "savior" bit?

Here's a clue for you:

If Jefferson had wanted "publicly funded" education in the United States Constitution, he could have written across the Atlantic and asked them to put it in.

He didn't, they didn't, and it's not in there. In the document that Jefferson did co-author, he doesn't mention "no public schools" as one of the nation's greivances against King George.

No, it looks like Jefferson followed the Constitution and pushed for state-funded, not federally funded, public education for Virginia. Which is what the Constitution allows if you'd bother to read the damn thing.

[Vitiate]

Do I get to pick the verb?

And is Jefferson the Second Coming of Jesus? What's that "savior" bit?

Here's a clue for you:

If Jefferson had wanted "publicly funded" education in the United States Constitution, he could have written across the Atlantic and asked them to put it in.

He didn't, they didn't, and it's not in there. In the document that Jefferson did co-author, he doesn't mention "no public schools" as one of the nation's greivances against King George.

No, it looks like Jefferson followed the Constitution and pushed for state-funded, not federally funded, public education for Virginia. Which is what the Constitution allows if you'd bother to read the damn thing.

Wow, you're an idiot. He pushed for an amendment on his state of the union address to federally fund public schools....Some kind of historian you are.

The present consideration of a national establishment for education particularly is rendered proper by this circumstance also, that if Congress, approving the proposition, shall yet think it more eligible to found it on a donation of lands, they have it now in their power to endow it with those which will be among the earliest to produce the necessary income.

The Avalon Project : Jefferson : Reports to Congress (6th)

[Freedom for All]

Wow, you're an idiot. He pushed for an amendment on his state of the union address to federally fund public schools....Some kind of historian you are.

Did he get the Amendment?

Hmmm....no.

You got any idea what you just did?

[Vitiate]

Did he get the Amendment?

Hmmm....no.

You got any idea what you just did?

Yes, show you that your hero for limited government felt strongly about educating the public, a framer of the constitution, an anti-federalist. I don't mind that it's not defined in the constitution. So ironic that you can abuse his theory yet completely devoid anything he's said after.