Response to classic conservative argument...

[Fountain79]

National Healthcare, National Educational Programs, National Welfare is unconstitutional because the constitution does not assign those powers to the federal government. Those should all be a state matter as per the ninth amendment. What would be your response to that argument?

[leftofthedial]

1. war on drugs either

and no power to ban gay marriage

or to rule one way or another on abortion

or to limit medical use of marijuana

or to spy on ANY American without a warrant

[Fountain79]

14. address the points I made first..

A conservative could most likely come up with an argument to defend those points.

[Vincardog]

2. How about promote the general welfare ?

We the people of the United States, in order 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Get you copy of the Constitution here

<http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm>

[Katherine Brengle]

3. response:

"National Healthcare, National Educational Programs, National Welfare is unconstitutional because the constitution does not assign those powers to the federal government. Those should all be a state matter as per the ninth amendment. What would be your response to that argument?"

Good question. The Constitution also doesn't assign many of the powers that conservatives want the government to have, but that is fighting crap with crap.

The Constition DOES provide for equal protection under the law and it gives every American citizen the rights of life, liberty, and property.

Life cannot be maintained, in some cases, without assistance. Therefore, national single-payer healthcare and welfare programs seem like a non-issue to me, Constitutionally speaking. (Mind you, I am speaking extemporaneously here and haven't done any research in preparation to answer this question.)

As far as I know, public education is still controlled in each state by those states. Although some funding is spread out among the states by the federal government. I see no problem with this, as long as the schools are functioning at the right level--that is, meeting accreditation requirements and not breaking any laws, providing what the students need in order to learn and preserving equality among student regardless of race, income bracket, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

[rkc3]

4. Ask why personal welfare is bad - but corporate welfare in a

supposedly free market is good. At least personal welfare helps a large number of needy people. Corporate welfare helps those who need no help.

There are a few cases of corporate welfare that could be cited very easily.

[Katherine Brengle]

5. here's the thing...

Guys, you can't argue against something with nothing more than additional questions. You won't ever win an argument that way.

(Your points are valid, just not answers.)

[Vincardog]

7. The constitution does require the Government to promote the general welfare

I thought we were on jeopardy and the answers needed to be in the form of a question.

[Katherine Brengle]

10. lol--you are absolutely right about the general welfare--i used the same..

line in my original response.

:)

[Skelington]

9. Amen !

[Catrina]

6. Nor does the Constitution forbid those powers to the Federal Government

Ask him to show you where it does ~

1) Pre-emptive war is unconstitutional
2) Warrantless wire-tapping of US citiznes, violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.
3) Not defending and protecting the Constitution is a violation of the oath of office.
4) Attempting to upset the balance of powers (unitary executive) violates the Constitution.
5) Silencing dissent is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
6) The Constitution does not provide for elected officials to lie to the American people.
7) Cruel and unusual punishment (torture) is in violation of the Constitution.

So, Rightwinger, what do you have to say about these blatant violations of the Constitution under the current administration, being that you are so concerned about the Constitution?

Otoh, 'promoting the general welfare' was one of the main goals of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution. That would include adequate healthcare and assistance to those less fortunate, ie, children, the disabled, the elderly etc.

So, he's claiming that the intent of the Constitution was to neglect the most vulnerable citizens, let them die, let them eat cake, remain ignorant? Ask him where that's written into the Constitution.

I hate these people's intense hatred for those who are the most vulnerable in our society. They adore the insane, greedy, corporatists who kick them in the teeth every chance they get, but have apoplexy if someone gives an elderly widow a little help. And they claim to be Christians. Even if the intent of the Constitution was to neglect the needs of citizens, as Christians, they ought to know what Jesus had to say about that.

[Cats Against Frist]

8. While I agree with your earlier points

I would say that this phrase:

Otoh, 'promoting the general welfare' was one of the main goals of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution. That would include adequate healthcare and assistance to those less fortunate, ie, children, the disabled, the elderly etc.

...is patently untrue and WAY off base. To say that "promote the general welfare," mandates nationalized healthcare, housing, anything like that is an extrapolation. Though, earlier posters are correct: nothing in the Constitution forbids nationalized healthcare, except for possibly the tenth amendment, which could just as likely be extrapolated to mean that only the states could provide for such an accommodation. I would think the ninth actually helps the health and welfare case, as precedent and tradition are often used in ninth consideration, and the welfare state has been around for some time.

[Katherine Brengle]

11. It's not a mandate, but it is a supporting argument...

Saying that the Constitution has some provision for promoting for the general welfare of the population is not a mandate for something like national healthcare, but it is a reasonable argument in favor of some degree of Constitutional support.

Of course, particular amendments, such as those previously named, must be considered.

[Katherine Brengle]

12. It's not a mandate, but it is a supporting argument...

Saying that the Constitution has some provision for promoting for the general welfare of the population is not a mandate for something like national healthcare, but it is a reasonable argument in favor of some degree of Constitutional support.

Of course, particular amendments, such as those previously named, must be considered.

[Katherine Brengle]

13. It's not a mandate, but it is a supporting argument...

Saying that the Constitution has some provision for promoting for the general welfare of the population is not a mandate for something like national healthcare, but it is a reasonable argument in favor of some degree of Constitutional support.

Of course, particular amendments, such as those previously named, must be considered.