Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Question for those who object to the Patriot Act?
Specifically, for those who object to the Patriot Act, but support the Health Care iniatives:
How does the same person oppose the Patriot Act and support government Health Care?
Please explain what objection you could have to the Patriot Act would not also demand that you object to government Health Care.
If the Patriot Act is Unconstitutional, then how is Health Care Constitutional?
If the Patriot Act is "intrusive," how is limiting my health care choices and giving some taxpayers the bill for others' health care unintrusive?
If you're one of those who is vocally opposing the Patriot Act but considers themselves innocent of wrongdoing that might be discovered by the Act, why is the privacy of your innocence so important to you, but you are in favor of giving up the privacy of health care decisions?
I just can't see any explanation for one person opposing the Patriot Act but favoring government Health Care, except for them being programmed by hype.
For the record, I oppose both, but I could make a much, much better Constitutional argument for the Patriot Act if I had to.
Baltek, you can't find anything about Health Care in the Constitution at all, unless it's "promote the general welfare." I can make that cover the Patriot Act, too. I also have the phrase about suspending Habeus Corpus. I also hae a line of argument that a wiretap isn't even a "search and seizure" in the first place, and therefore there is no need for a warrant.
Keep trying, but you haven't managed to think yet.
Baltek, if your assumption about the built-in flexibility is true, then there was never a point to Article 5 in the first place.
You are correct that there's nothing in it about funding Science, either. They were very clear and specific about how they wanted the federal government to promote Science.
Keki, if you do in fact have a brain, use it. Both of these things are acts of the federal government, and therefore subject to the Constitution, and worthy of this analysis.
3 Answers
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I'm against both Patriot Act and Gov't Healthcare. I agree w/ you, it's kind of hypocritical to pick and choose which Constituional rights are violated. Either you're completely for or completely against it.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The healthcare initiative isn't going to break down the laws that were constructed to prevent the CIA from spying on and carrying out operations against U.S. citizens within our country without any sort of government oversight.
You should look into the CIA records that were declassified a few years ago. Back in the 50's and 60's, before the laws went into effect that prevented the CIA from operating within the country, they took some pretty serious "extra judicial" actions against war protesters, individuals suspected of socialist ideals (a.k.a. liberals, progressives, social workers, public defenders, etc.)
Additionally, the ability of warrantless search and arrest is in no possible way justifiable under the constitution, so don't even talk about making an argument for it.
Additionally, since there is no health care bill yet, you don't know that it is going to limit your choices. In fact, none of the proposals that are seriously being considered would do that unless you should refuse to have health insurance, in which case you would be put on a default emergency plan so the rest of us wouldn't have to pay for your care if you broke an arm and went to the emergency room (which is the way it works now). Additionally, none of the proposals being considered would create a system anything like the much bemoaned Canadian one payer system. Which is good to know, because Canada is actually the only industrialized nation where surgery wait-times are longer than they are in the U.S.
*edit*
The constitution also says nothing about car insurance, anti-trust legislation, government funding for scientific research or any of a hundred other pieces of legislation.
The founders of the nation realized that the government might need powers that some 40 odd people from very similar backgrounds might not have the ability to imagine. They intentional left legislative means through which the government could act without having to wait 20 years for someone to finally be able to push a constitutional amendment through.
Try again.
Source(s): I am currently pursuing a master's degree in constitutional law. - KekiongaLv 71 decade ago
Wow... That is like making a comparison between apples and oranges...
You are discussing two entirely different legal matters which makes you question invalid.
~
Source(s): My brain....
