Both McCain and Obama spoke about new government programs. McCain wants to use $300 billion to buy up mortgages from people whose homes might be foreclosed. Obama has proposed the federal government providing health insurance to people who can't afford insurance, these are people not already covered under Medicaid and Medicare. How could BOTH programs be considered unconstitutional?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Camaro
Wedding Day!
28 comments:
Both of the plans have the same basic problems. Either way, the federal government would be taking people's personal property by force to give it to other people. There are several reasons this is unconstitutional. First of all, the Constitution prevents the government from taking people's property without due process. Second, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide healthcare or housing for people. The government should not do anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.
(that was Kayla Crowell from white 2)
Both programs are good...but they are not constitutional. And they are not constitional because nowhere in the law does it say that the government has the right to take over free enterprise and choose what to do with the businesses(or in this case homes) of the people that are struggling. Its the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...not the right of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, AND the idea that the government can step in and rescue the people who don't have the money to pay for insurance or have any idea on how to sell their house(s). We are given the right to either sink or swim on our own...yes these plans for the economy can help us greatly, but both of these policies go against the constitution and the LIMITED powers that the government legally possess. We need a plan that would help the country in the long run, instead of the government always throwing money at the problem and temporarily fixing it. FDR realized this, that is why we bounced back from the Great Depression. Because if we throw money away as a fast means of solving the crises, we would get in even more debt and the economy would trickle down to even lower prosperity than it already has
There are multiple ways both their plans could be deemed unconstitutional. First, the constitution does not give the government the right to buy mortgages from failing banks. second, the Constitution does not give the government the right to give everyone healthcare. And lastly, the government cannot take land without just compensation.
Both of the canidates have plans that are unconstitutional. Obama wants to give everyone a basic health coverage care free of charge and it doesnt say in the constitution that he has the right to do that. Also, one of their plans is to take property by force and to give it to the ones that have little or no property.
All of both of these plans are unconstitutional. 1. Where does it say in the constitution that the president has the right to give health insurance to people who can't afford health care? Nowhere.
2. The federal government can't house people, they don't have that power. 3. The power to take your land for PUBLIC use is allowed in the constitution. Not take from one to give to another.
Both of there plans are unconstitutional because the government has no right to take the land of people without compensating them.2nd the people should have the right to healthcare if they want it,and not forced upon them.3rd if the banks are failing let them fail it there fault. they will get thenselves out of it keep the government out of it
it is not the job of the U.S. government to provide healthcare and homes for its citizens. these things are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution
Both of them have flaws. Using the people's money is unconstitutional, plus the constitution frowns upon the housing and healthcare given to the people through the government. Both will get on the good side with the people who aren't familiar with the constitution. But to those who know the constitution it is unconstitutional.
P.S. Sorry for not doing it earlier, the blog wasnt there, i guess you could say it was... down
P.S.S. This is the handiwork of Jason Daniel copyright08
These programs could be considered "unconstitutional" because these are not powers provided in the constitution. These may be programs that may in any way help our economy, but the candidates are in the wrong court.
One question. How do we fix our economy, if the feds and the pres. candidates are not involved?
Jonah Padilla
W2
WhaTIsLiFe94 said...
These programs could be considered "unconstitutional" because these are not powers provided in the constitution. These may be programs that may in any way help our economy, but the candidates are in the wrong court.
One question. How do we fix our economy, if the feds and the pres. candidates are not involved?
Jonah Padilla
W2
Jasons comment somehow collided with mine, so im re entering this, if u click on his name"youknow what period im in..."
it shows
McCain: The Constitution doesn't say that the government should provide houses for the citizens of America and $300 billion wouldn't buy ALL the houses that might be foreclosed. Not only is this idea unconstitutional and unfair but it would further National debt and has the potential to disrupt domestic tranquility.
Obama: Health care is not for the general welfare of America and is unconstitutional according to amendment 10. The Constitution did not specify health care to the government so it is for the states or the people. If Obama's plan is used then healthcare lines would grow very fast and be very long. soon it would take possibly years to get the healthcare one needed. Some wouldn't get the care they needed in time which is NOT for the general welfare of America.
McCain and Obama both have okay ideas, but niether of them are constitutional. One of the amendments says that the governent cannot take a persons property or things with compensation. If McCains idea went through, it would be unconstitutional. Obama wants to give everyone free healthcare. While this could be nice for the lower class people, no where in the constitution does it say that free healthcare should be given out. This is unconstitutional. Both ideas end up costing money in the end (even Obamas) and that is not what the country needs. The government is not permitted to buy up mortgages or to give out free benefits to the people.
Both of their plans are unconstitutional because:
1. The government doesn't have the power in the first place to BUY mortgages...the bank does.
2. The government doesn't have the right to take peoples' houses without just compensation.
3. (Big problem with Obama's plan) The government cannot provide money or health care to people! The government's job is to PROTECT not to PROVIDE.
Both candidates MCcain and Obama have plans that can be viewed as constitutional, based on the principle of well being stated in the preamble. 1.MCcains plan to buy up peoples homes is constituitonal because of Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.
"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;.2This same principle can be applied to Obamas healthcare plan. Along with the meaning of well being which is what is good for a person.This includes health ect and it is safe to say that lowering healthcare cost are for the well being of are nation shown by these stats. Health care costs are far higher in the United States than in any other advanced nation, whether measured in total dollars spent, as a percentage of the economy, or on a per capita basis.3.By these things shown, both canidates have plans that can be considered constitutional.
Aside from my blog comment, I would really just like to say that I liked watching the videos from David Barton. I really didn't know our heritage was based on THAT many principles on the Bible. I do thank you for showing us these videos, and am very sad that we won't get to finish it.
-Amanda Vaughn W2
1. Both palns seem to be right and good for people. But they are not constitutional.
2. For, McCain, government can't take people's property without compensating it(In 5th amendment). He means that he will fill the $300 billion from the taxes but it's unfair for the other people who have to pay more taxes not for themselves.
3. Obama, says that the government should provide health insurance people . But the people have the right to choose their own health care. Therefore, they should fix that plan that would be considered constitutional.
W2
Seonmin Lee
The second debate goes to Mccain again. Obama made a big mistake, and hopefully all the American people caught it. He told the people everything he was going to spend, stuff that the people want. He also said that he would cut more than he would spend, but what important factor did he convienentally leave out? EXACTLYwhat he was going to cut. Mccain wants to drill offshore, which is going to help America immensely with gas prices. The people can't afford it right now, and drilling offshore is vital. Finally, Mccain said that the bailout was something we need to do, because it will put the housing market back on it's feet. That will help greatly because if the government doesn't bail them out, the people will and it will cost America.
-Stephanie Berry, W2
In my opinion, both plans are constitutional.
Mortgage problem is general welfare and interstate trade issue. Under the Article1 section8, Congress can collect tax and spend tax for general welfare. Also under the Article1 section8, the federal government has power to regulate commerce among several states. Therefore, the federal government can use $300 to buy up mortgages from people whose homes might be foreclosed.
47million Americans don't have health insurance. It's big problem. Although the Constitution doesn't say that the federal government has the power to solve health insurance problems, the federal government has powers to improve general welfare of Americans. It can make laws necessary and proper to carry out these powers. so, Mccain and Obama's plans are constitutional.
In McCain's opinion, he wil use $300 billion for mortgages. And Obama providing health insurance to people who can't afford insurance.
1.when peoples become poor, and house cost bwcome low, they can't trun money to bank. If they don't pay it, bank will be poor. Then bank will fall problem like now.
2. American's health are really important for president. But maybe in America, there are lots of people who can't afford insurance. Then when Obama provide health insurance to them, it might be spend really lots money.
3. Those opinions are may be. Not real. Because they want to be a priesdent, and they need to make agree people to their team. But those are not really good. Because they didn't think people. Actually they look like think people very much. when they really thimk about people in U.S.A, they must give opinions which they can do taht when they become a president. $300 billion, provide health insurance, they can't do that. It will spend lots of money, and time.
4.When McCain make $300 billion, it will be Americans taxes. That's not fair. When he want to do that, he must not use peoples money. And government do not have right about free to use peoples money (Amendment5). I mean McCain dose not have right about to use $300 billion.
Those are why i think their opinions are unconstitutional.
Taking from the "have's" and giving to the "have not's" - where did we learn about that previously, Aaron?
:) Are we a federal republic, or a socialist oligarchy? Our Constitution doesn't provide for wealth redistribution, as much as people wish it would.
Glenn
McCain had proved the better points. 1) McCain understands as the economic crisis grows larger, America should not be spending on frivolous things. 2)Obama says he will cut more than spend, but he did not make it clear as to what spendings he would cut, showing that he has not taken as much time thinking of this what to cut. 3)Obama believes that healthcare should be run by the government even though it's a right given by God, not the government.
These are unconstitutional because they are not for the general welfare. Also it is unconsitutional for the federal government to use taxpayer's money for a few people. Lastly, using our money to pay for other peoples healthcare is definately unconstitutional.
Both plans are unconstitutional, even though not in the same way. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government can take a home from one person to give it to another. Thats crazy! The government shouldn't be allowed to force people into health insurance, either. People should get to choose. If they want it bad enough then they will save up the money and not just take it from the government.
The government is taking the people's money be force, which goes against the Ammendments, and then they are giving that money to OTHER people. The government is acting as a provider trying to give healthcare and house people. The government is only a protector. Both of these go against the Bill of Rights, and they know it...
-katie fredt w[2]-
The government is taking the people's money be force, which goes against the Ammendments, and then they are giving that money to OTHER people. The government is acting as a provider trying to give healthcare and house people. The government is only a protector. Both of these go against the Bill of Rights, and they know it...
-katie fredt w[2]-
Both candidates proposals are umconstitutional. Taking a person's property without due process is unconstitutional. America is based on free trade a person may not want the government to bail them out, this also vilates the ninth amendment. Mandatory health care is not apart of the constitution. It could also violate freedom of religion. It may also violate a person's freedom of choice becase they may not want health care.
Throughout the presidential debate the candidates have been proposing good ideas. However the ideas are not constitutional. One of McCain’s ideas is to buy up the entire bad mortgage when in the Constitution says congress can not interfere with anyone’s house. As well for Obama who wants to give average class families the choice of better healthcare, however the Constitution does not enable the congress to provide for the peoples healthcare. Lastly, they both can’t take away someone’s land without just cause.
DJ Olowojesiku
Post a Comment