A couple of weeks ago, a friend and I were having a discussion about public health care. Recalling a recent reading of certain sections of our Constitution, I argued that within the document, there are allowances for public health care. My friend proceeded to tell me that my interpretation of the Constitution was very liberal. No shit. (Neophytes, take heed. I am left of Democrat.)
My reading of the constitution may be simplistic, naive, idealistic, or -- dare I say -- misinformed. Here, I invite conservative readers to attack my interpretation of the Constitution. Let us start with the preamble, which defines the Constitution's intent:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."
The short phrase I've highlighted is the basis for my case, but I realize that "welfare" is a loaded word. A small amount of research, however, revealed that in the context of the Constitution, the word "welfare" defined in the following manner: health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being 1. I'm inclined to look at the aggregate meaning of those words and argue that the Constitution allows for at least some form of government health care. If the electorate feels that health care coverage for all is necessary, then they are to cast their vote for someone who will uphold the spirit of the Constitution to the best of their ability
Additionally, the Constitution directs Congress to collect taxes for the following purposes (Article I, Section 8):
"The 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Liberals don't generally oppose paying higher taxes, though we sometimes bitch and moan under our breaths about it amongst kindred spirits. If elected officials must raise taxes to promote the welfare of the people of the United States, or other purpose that serves the common good, then we remain content.
As a citizen, uneducated in constitutional law, I like to make informed arguments about that which I support. We elect officials to do a job for us, the people of the United States. If we say "public health care", they'd better jump, or lose their seat in office. Appealing to the lowest common denominator and pitting us against one another with words like "socialism" or "death panels" will only work for so long before the people see through the thin veil.
Do yourselves a favor and read the document that defines the government's duties, your duties, and your rights. Stop letting politicians tell you what to think.
1 Definitions and Constitutional text gathered from U.S. Constitution Online.
A couple of weeks ago, a friend and I were having a discussion about public health care. Recalling a recent reading of certain sections of our Constitution, I argued that within the document, there are allowances for public health care. My friend proceeded to tell me that my interpretation of the Constitution was very liberal. No shit. (Neophytes, take heed. I am left of Democrat.)
My reading of the constitution may be simplistic, naive, idealistic, or -- dare I say -- misinformed. Here, I invite conservative readers to attack my interpretation of the Constitution. Let us start with the preamble, which defines the Constitution's intent:
The short phrase I've highlighted is the basis for my case, but I realize that "welfare" is a loaded word. A small amount of research, however, revealed that in the context of the Constitution, the word "welfare" defined in the following manner: health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being 1. I'm inclined to look at the aggregate meaning of those words and argue that the Constitution allows for at least some form of government health care. If the electorate feels that health care coverage for all is necessary, then they are to cast their vote for someone who will uphold the spirit of the Constitution to the best of their ability
Additionally, the Constitution directs Congress to collect taxes for the following purposes (Article I, Section 8):
Liberals don't generally oppose paying higher taxes, though we sometimes bitch and moan under our breaths about it amongst kindred spirits. If elected officials must raise taxes to promote the welfare of the people of the United States, or other purpose that serves the common good, then we remain content.
As a citizen, uneducated in constitutional law, I like to make informed arguments about that which I support. We elect officials to do a job for us, the people of the United States. If we say "public health care", they'd better jump, or lose their seat in office. Appealing to the lowest common denominator and pitting us against one another with words like "socialism" or "death panels" will only work for so long before the people see through the thin veil.
Do yourselves a favor and read the document that defines the government's duties, your duties, and your rights. Stop letting politicians tell you what to think.
1 Definitions and Constitutional text gathered from U.S. Constitution Online.