prev next front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30 |31 |32 |33 |34 |35 |36 |37 |38 |39 |40 |41 |42 |43 |44 |45 |46 |47 |review
Proponents of federal government involvement in public health attempted to circumvent this Constitutional hang-up by citing other parts of this document which could be interpreted to allow federal governmental participation in public health matters i.e.: the interstate commerce clause gave the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce (impure food and drugs) and the fact that Congress was empowered to provide "for the general welfare" of the populace would appear to give the federal government a wide range of authority in preserving the public's health. Despite these last 2 points, states rights’ proponents and all other parties opposing federal intervention, for whatever reasons, continued, and still continue today, to raise the Constitutional issue of the federal government’s legal role in public health issues.