Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution
Debate Rounds (3)
Secondly, for my part of the debate, I wil define a "strict interpretation". A strict interpretation of the constitution allows for the Federal Government to have the power to do exactly as the constituion says.
-Other wise known as the "Elastic Cluase" the constituion in Article One Section Eight states....."To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."
Now, although The Nessary and Proper clause is typically considered a loose interpretation aspect, considering it is listed explicitly in the constituion, it applies to my side of the debate.
My arguement Is that is the National Government sees it fit to give people in the United States then they are allowed to do so. They have not broken any laws passing this health care bill. You can't really argue that it doesn't say "Thy Governement shall give permission to dictact Universial HealthCare in the united states..." because back when it was written, health care to them was a local doctor or thier wife. The Elastic clause allows them to stict to the words of the constitution and to help people for what they see fit.
Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause applies to my argument of a loose interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Also involved is the General Welfare Clause which is part of the Taxing and Spending Clause in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Responces to first Bullet.
-My first responce is that I explicitly stated in the first round that the "strict interpretation" of the constitution now doe not have the same meaning as it used to aka during the times when Hamilton was using it.
-Second, this bulet actually helps my side of the debate. As we can see in the quotations it keeps saying that we must do what is right and proper but we must do it within the bounds of the constitution. This means that they want to do what is right as long as they are in the bounds of the constituion
-Again, This bullet falls to my side of the debate because it shows how the constituion, but using the exact words in text, are able to govern theunited states without breaking any constitutional laws.
-Same argument applies to this bullet as the two before me.
Now I would like to reiderate my stances.
-First of all, we must keep in mind that times have changed since the 1700's and our interpretations have as well. But, one thing that hasn't changed is the words in the constitution. By my defintion, the anything the Constitution says the government can do and it would become a strict interpretation. By this notion, they can use the Nessary and Proper clause and it still be considered a strict interpretation because is it explicity written in the text.
-As for the healthcare bill, we must keep in mind that Hamiltion and other leaders such as him did not know of things like "universial Health care" but they anticipated things such as for the future. They made provisions for this in the constitution, aka the elastic clause.
-I would like to point out that my oppenet has not attacted my defintion and it still stands in this round.
Although health care and education have not been specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution, the interpretation of the Supreme Court has seen it to the contrary. For some reason their is a Department of Education. The General Welfare Clause has been interpreted loosely in the establishment of the department as well as the Federal Reserve. In terms of the Copyright Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court also saw the useful arts and sciences as not only applying to inventions, but all knowledge and philosophy related things, including scientific research.  My argument is how the Supreme Court will rule, not my personal opinion or what I want them to decide. My opponent is arguing that the U.S. Government will decide what is best is a loose interpretation, not a strict interpretation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I have to side that the arguments presented for the loose view seem more likely, given our government, however, given the political lean of the supreme court, the constitution may only be used to justify currently held political ideals. But anyway, CON did not do a good job making me believe that 1.8 was part of the strict holding of the constitution, so I have to hold that it falls under the loose.