Is the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States to be interpreted as being legally binding?

[cherokeeprogressive]

That is to ask the question... is the Preamble separate from the Constitution and merely a statement of intent, or is it to be considered PART OF THE BODY of the Constitution and therefore does it legally bind the US Government to certain actions? Should the Preamble be considered while arguing whether or not the US Government has a duty to provide health care?

To my knowledge, there has only been one case where the Supreme Court has addressed whether the Preamble is binding law. It is contained in

JACOBSON v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) 197 U.S. 11

HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err.,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 70.

Argued December 6, 1904.
Decided February 20, 1905.

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.
-----------
I submit that as written, the Constitution does NOT require that the US Government provide for health care for citizens, but that a Constitutional Amendment could change that. I'd hazard a guess that such an Amendment to the Constitution would pass handily, and THEN we as a nation could force our supposed representatives to write a law or laws to make it happen in such a way as to provide preventative care and acute care and divide the cost amongst all citizens, rich and poor, by means of a progressive tax or fee.

Until that happens, I think there is such a divide between the two Parties that health care for all, in any form, will not happen.

Back to the orginial question: Is health care for all a notion that can be inferred by the Preamble? Is "promote the general welfare" a binding requirement of the government to provide healthcare for all?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=197&invol=11&linkurl

[BzaDem]

1. The preamble doesn't force the government to provide for the general welfare at all.

It says that IN ORDER to promote the general welfare, they ordain and establish the Constitution.

That is very different than saying the government under the constitution is required to provide for the general welfare. Similarly, if I say "Because I want you to succeed, I am going to do X," I am not committing to them that they will succeed.

I think the preamble might be helpful in interpreting the other provisions. But the preamble itself doesn't articulate any right or impose any requirement or restriction on the government, by its own words. So whether it is "legally binding" or not is irrelevant.

[LARED]

2. A few things

The preamble provide for no rights, and certainly no inalienable rights as a US Citizen.

You are dreaming if you think a constitutional amendment providing a right to health care would pass handily. I don't think it is even remotely possible or desirable.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. It doesn't need to be.

The issues dealt with in the Preamble are addressed just a little later in the body.

ARTICLE I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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;

The "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility" is provided for in the creation of the Judiciary, and "secure the blessings of Liberty" could be seen as having been provided for in the Bill of Rights.

Health Care is Constitutional under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, Clause 3, and Clause 18.

[BzaDem]

7. The debate isn't whether Health Care is Constitutional (of course it is). The issue is whether the

Constitution REQUIRES that the government provide healthcare for all. In other words, whether it would be unconstitutional not to provide it.

[louis c]

9. That's the one that is cited

for the constitutional right to establish a national; health care system. "provide for the....general welfare". What's more important to the general welfare than health care?

[eridani]

4. As long as it's in Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress, who gives a shit? n/t

[BzaDem]

6. Article I, Section 8 lists a power of Congress. Not a requirement that Congress do anything. n/t

[eridani]

10. So? They are supposed to represent us. n/t

[BzaDem]

11. Of course they are. That doesn't mean they constitutionally required to enact any particular policy.

[eridani]

13. So?

The cited power of congress makes universal health care a perfectly acceptable function of government.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. In Theory Yes, In Practice No

It is to vague to be considered legally binding in of and by itself.

[safeinOhio]

8. What Jefferson says about a Constitution

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of... ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1816

[Statistical]

12. To answer the question behind the question. National Health Care is Constitutional.

However there is NO REQUIREMENT for the government to institute National Health Care thus no National Health Care is ALSO Constitutional.

The number of things the government is REQUIRED to do (as opposed to merely having the POWER to do) is very limited. Less than a dozen items. The Constitution is more a limiting document. There are for more provisions that prohibit certain actions by the federal government. The Bill of Rights also expressly limits governmental power.

"Is health care for all a notion that can be inferred by the Preamble? Is "promote the general welfare" a binding requirement of the government to provide healthcare for all?"
No and No.