Chris Hadlock

Chris Hadlock 2 weeks, 6 days ago on Christine Manzanares: We want government-run health care

Some would think that means your opinion is out of the main stream. When that many court decisions disagree with your reading of the Constitution it might not be the courts that are wrong.

0

Chris Hadlock 2 weeks, 6 days ago on Christine Manzanares: We want government-run health care

Ken, I actually share many of your concerns about privacy. Anywhere data accumulates someone finds a way to make money with it. From Gov't, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Comcast, ATT, Verizon and indeed everywhere you touch electronics someone somewhere is trying to capture what you looked at.

The question is: Are the current insurers like Anthem, Blue Cross etc. and providers like YVMA/YVMC or any other Doctors office any safer?

You are dead on right when you say both sides would use the information, but the scope of the problem is so much larger.

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 1 day ago on David Ihde: Americans don't want government-run health care

Ken, I most definitely did not change the subject. We are discussing the "general welfare" clause which is referenced twice in a document of roughly 4400 words. The fact it is in the pre-amble in no way reduces it's meaning when it it also included in Article 1 Section 8. If you read my 1st posting on this topic you will see that I specifically referenced that Article and Section to support my assertion that the 10th amendment does not over ride the general welfare clause.

The topic here is whether a single payer system would be "Constitutional" Again, I believe the courts would find that just like all the rest of the social programs, a single payer system would be upheld. Both you and David are trying to argue the opposite.

Whether that is the right path to take and what our other options might be is a completely different conversation.

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 1 day ago on David Ihde: Americans don't want government-run health care

These are pulled from the "Actual" Supreme court decisions. There are others I could reference but most scholars agree that these two decisions confirm both the authority and the limitations of the "general welfare" clause.

Sure, argue with me all you want, but this is the actual law of the land.

IMO, healthcare falls directly in the "general welfare" clause should Congress decide to write laws concerning healthcare and health insurance. Every single court decision I can find supports this line of thought. Come at me with more than somebody's opinion all due respect to Cornell University aside. Show me actual Supreme Court decisions that define the boundaries.

Even the most recent ACA decision by the Robert's court seems to agree with my point of view and also throws out the implied heavy hand of the Federal Gov't to force its will on the States or lose funding (ie the Medicaid expansion). I suspect the attempts to pull funding from sanctuary cities will find the same fate.

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 1 day ago on David Ihde: Americans don't want government-run health care

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

reference: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/1/

  1. In Article I, § 8, cl. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have power

"to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,"

the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power "to lay and collect taxes," etc. P. 297 U. S. 64.

  1. The power to appropriate money from the Treasury (Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7) is as broad as the power to tax, and the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States implies the power to appropriate public funds for that purpose. P. 297 U. S. 65.

  2. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 297 U. S. 65.

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 1 day ago on David Ihde: Americans don't want government-run health care

Helvering v. Davis 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

  1. Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." P. 301 U. S. 640.

  2. The concept of "general welfare" is not static, but adapts itself to the crises and necessities of the times. P. 301 U. S. 641.

  3. When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the States. P. 301 U. S. 645.

reference: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/619/

Looks like direct references to me. I guess you can twist your eyeballs around and say that the supreme court did not say "general welfare" but I think most Americans know what is meant here.

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 1 day ago on David Ihde: Americans don't want government-run health care

Ken, there is a new tool out there called "google" you should use it sometimes before spouting off your opinions as facts. you wrote: " It's fascinating that you continue to believe that Preambles in our founding documents have legal weight when there isn't a single example, in over 220 years, of a US court interpreting any of our preambles as law. Not. A. Single. Example."

Example 1. (Actually two cases but hey)

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[23] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matte rs affecting only the national welfare.

Example 2: Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[24] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole[25] the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 1 day ago on Scott Tipton: Rolling back federal overreach

The only time I receive communication from Rep. Tipton's office is when he has once again passed some bill. In each and every case, his comments have completely ignored anything I wrote or said and I could have gotten his words directly from the most recent Ryan/McConnell speech or the RNC website.. The other communication I get is for fund raising activities. From the complete lack of response I have seen, it would appear that he is not listening to anyone in Colorado IMO.

I would expect at least a form letter or automated response that is followed up with an actual response to the details of my communication. Is that not what a Congressional staff is for? When it comes to Scott Tipton's listening abilities you might as well be talking to the pine trees for all the difference it makes.

One of us should call his office with an offer to donate $5000 for a three minute conversation with Rep. Tipton and see how long it takes him to respond to that.

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 2 days ago on Scott Tipton: Rolling back federal overreach

Yes, I specifically asked you to allow my ISP to share my browsing and shopping histories with anyone that cares to purchase that information. Thank you so much for valuing their profit margins over my right to privacy. That will certainly help grow the economy I am sure!

0

Chris Hadlock 3 weeks, 2 days ago on David Ihde: Americans don't want government-run health care

"As for National Single Payer, our Founders never intended for the federal government to control 1/7th of our economy. It's unconstitutional."

How so David? The only decisions we have to go one said that the ACA penalties were basically a tax, and that Congress has the authority to levy taxes for "the general welfare".

You can scream your "opinion" to high heaven and to anyone that will listen but just like so many others that scream "unconstitutional" you are wrong based on what the Constitution actually says.

My "opinion" is backed up by Supreme Court decisions. You have yet to show me a single thing that backs up yours other than a strongly held belief. That is nice, but your belief does not make it "unconstitutional"

I think Citizens United is "unconstitutional" but just like you, my "opinion" is subservient to the actual law. Please refer back to the actual wording of the 10th amendment and you will find that the Congressional power to levy taxes for the common defense and general welfare is specifically written into the Constitution and therefore not affected by the 10th amendment. Spin it however you would like, but 250 years of Supreme Court decisions would confirm that you need to find a different argument because your current tact is leading you to the rocky shoals of defeat. In my "opinion"

0

Prev