Healthcare Reform Thread II

[Hauldren Collider]

Could not the defense in the anti-health care bill suit not use the argument that in cases where a person's life depends on necessary medical care, that the federal government needs to ensure such people's right to life is protected even if they cannot otherwise afford such necessary medical care?

God damn you are making my brain hurt. Since when do we define basic human rights as including top of the line medical care?

Even beyond that, the constitution (specifically the 5th amendment) says the government can't deprive you of your life, liberty or property without due process; it doesn't say anywhere that the government must guarantee that you won't ever DIE.

[DinoDoc]

... they know it isn't even remotely constitutional ...

That is the basis of the lawsuit.

[Kuciwalker]

Where is the federal government getting its authority to protect basic human rights? Don't remember seeing that in the Constitution.

Amendment 14, Section 5.

[Ecofarm]

I don't know if equal protection under existing law amendment, that founded B v B cuts mustard on "authority to protect basic human rights" and what does section 5 have to do with that?

I'm a moron for looking, right?

It was not established on human rights, but constitutional rights.

[Hauldren Collider]

No, you're a moron because you have an IQ between 51 and 70. Not understanding the constitution is symptomatic.

[Ecofarm]

x2 post

[Ecofarm]

134, psychiatrist administered

But I don't see how equal constitutional rights authorizes the enforcement of any/all human rights.

[Zevico]

I don't know if equal protection under existing law amendment, that founded B v B cuts mustard on "authority to protect basic human rights" and what does section 5 have to do with that?

I'm a moron for looking, right?

It was not established on human rights, but constitutional rights.

Read section 5 with section 1. Section 1 is more to the point. Though it doesn't introduce an authority to protect 'basic human rights' as such, it (with section 5) grants the body power to make laws to protect 'life, liberty and property.'

[Kuciwalker]

I don't know if equal protection under existing law amendment, that founded B v B cuts mustard on "authority to protect basic human rights" and what does section 5 have to do with that?

The 14th Amendment "incorporated" the bill of rights (and various other rights citizens had wrt the federal government) to the states - so the states could no longer violate freedom of speech, etc. Section 5 is the section that grants Congress the power to pass laws guaranteeing those rights.

[Darius871]

Amendment 14, Section 5.

That has no meaning without all the SCOTUS baggage attached to it. In particular...

Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores

That aside, Section 5 can only be directed at state action, which unquestionably would not include the mere fact that one is uninsured, even if we were to assume that health care was a "human right" in the first place, which isn't uniformly held, and to assume that the 14th Amendment has anything to do with "human rights" (as opposed to constitutional rights), which it does not. How did MrFun even come up with this red herring?

[Kuciwalker]

All that says is that Congress can't define the rights themselves. Big deal?

[MrFun]

Where is the federal government getting its authority to protect basic human rights? Don't remember seeing that in the Constitution.

I guess the Declaration of Independence is nothing but toilet paper to you: "Right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

[-Jrabbit]

The fedgov has gone beyond the pale countless times. This is just a line in the sand, fodder for November talking points. Surely no one is surprised.

Reverse the majority and the issues would change, but not the level of vitriol.

[MrFun]

Have you ever read the necessary and proper clause?



So protecting human rights is necessary and proper to carry out which enumerated power of the federal government?

Then all federal legislation that emerged during Reconstruction and 20th century civil rights movement are unconstitutional??

[Darius871]

dp