144Views14Replies

Author Options:

Is Obama's Healthcare Plan Constituional? Answered

Before you launch yourselves into a debate about politics, please read what I have to say, and only mention things relating to my question in your response. Thanks. I am a supporter of Barack Obama, but I was thinking about his mandatory insurance for children clause of the his health care plan, and it struck me as unconstitutional. Does the federal government have the power to mandate that insurance be bought for all people under the age of 18? The 9th and 10th amendments clearly assign all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states and the people. Seeing as our constitution doesn't say anything about health care, or imply it, as far as I've seen, do they really have the power to mandate it? The thing is, i've never really seen this argument against socialized health care in the united states, am I missing something? Thanks! p.s. I plan on asking this same question to my American History teacher tomorrow, i'll let you all know what she says.

14 Replies

user
Weissensteinburg (author)2008-10-15

So this is what my US History teacher said: It would be impossible for a president to make insurance mandatory for children, and unconstitutional for congress to make it mandatory. She related it to No Child Left Behind...they would take away funding from any state that didn't make it mandatory. That way it's the states enacting it, but it's nearly impossible to stop it from happening. Also, he would have to get it passed through congress, so who we vote into office this year will make a difference, too. Makes sense?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

. W'burg 2028! . Better start thinkin' about who you want to be your VP.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)NachoMahma2008-10-16

I was going to mount a youtube campaign this year. I originally planned to run as a communist (to split the wacko vote). Now I think I'll have to run as a BLack Panther!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

. That's what they did with the 55mph speed limit. "You can set your speed limit wherever you want, but, if it's over 55, you don't get any money."
. From Wikipedia:
"A uniform 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit was signed by President Nixon on January 2, 1974, effective 60 days later by requiring the limit as a condition of each state receiving highway funds, a use of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution"
. (There's the Commerce Clause that TUA mentioned.)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

There really should be something making such behavior unlawful. Tommy J would so not approve.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)2008-10-15

It's not really constitutional to mandate it, but they will bully their way into getting it passed. Healthcare is a big, BIG problem. But our constitution should be held "sacred". It has not been for man, many years (By either party.).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Tool Using Animal (author)2008-10-15

They'll just do what the gov't always does to justify anything, claim it falls under the "commerce clause".

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I don't know if they can stretch it that far. Threatening to pull money is far more likely.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
LinuxH4x0r (author)2008-10-14
user
LinuxH4x0r (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-10-14

It wouldn't be the first law to be unconstitutional and still get passed

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

You're right, such as the Bank of the United States. But the reason a lot of those got passed is that everybody thought it was important they were passed. The BUS was something that everyone sees as essential. Mandatory health care, on the other hand, is a pretty controversial subject.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

That's not really the type of thing that could be an amendment, besides the fact that you could never get 2/3 of congress to pass it. Allowing the government to force us to purchase things against our will is totally against the principals that this country was founded upon.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)2008-10-14

. I don't know the answer, but would we have Medicare, Welfare, &c; if such things were unconstitutional? . Should be interesting to hear what your teacher says.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

But those are all optional, and could be considered "gifts". If old people had to pay for medicare, that would be a problem.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer