Healthcare....again

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i didn't mean agencies alone. and i shoulda said "generally no agencies"
sometimes i use examples that i use to think things through as the point.

my positions:
congress can tax for the general welfare, at least to the point that it's clearly obvious the general welfare is actually being mitigated. i generelly defer to congress, here. some things i might personally find wrong, but that's not enough.

congress can spend freely-- even if it includes something like an agency like "welfare services" to see who they should send money to. i don't see this as usupring the powers delineated cause they are only doing things to see what they want to spend money on.
once they start doing things like, creating an agency to fly to the moon (i would prefer that it exist, but it's prob unconst), it doesn't have anything to do with spending.

and my point isn't just "agencies" that are allowed or not-- creating courts that aren't listed. or whatever. creating crimes that arent listed. whatever. these don't hve anything to do with spending, without a too tenous argument.
(kind of like how they said you can regulate commerce in a broad sense.... but 'crimes' don't have anything to do with commerce even if you can connect them to it with a stretched connection-- a line is drawn)

Edited July 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also while i generally try to stick to the law, or whatever.
for things like the FDA, or NASA... it's not consistent for me to be for themas a legal matter. but, i'm not gonna go out of my way to fight about it. in fact, i might even be willing to look the other way. but not usually.
there's a hint of a throw caustion to the wind, liberal streak in me.. but not much. hard core moderate, all the way, as always.

i'm not big into legalisms.

and when someone like ron paul says things like "it shouldn't exist", i find much of his ideas to be legalisms. at least, as far as what he thinks if he were a jurist. as a personal opinion of it being in the ocnfines of the constitution or not, he's more reasonable. even there though, things like "we can't regulate this or that" as he's prong to say-- is often just wrong, imho.

Edited July 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[reelguy227]

I guess we agree to disagree on the general welfare thing. But that's what America is all about.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a lot of what you find unconstitutional, though, i do too, both personally and in a jurist sense.

yeah just sayin-- but i might even find the FDA constitutional, cause it's a reasonable extension of their commerce power, their regulatory power of commerce. like they can do reasonable extensions of spending power to see what they want to spend money on.
ie, they "engage" in things, like processing meat, to enforce their regulations, and to see how they want to regulate.
that seems pretty reasonable.
when ron paul says he's against it, it seems like a legalism at best, cause it's the FDA, give em a break they're doing good --- and and at worst he's just wrong tht it's unconstitutional cause it's at least plausible per the jurist objective analysis.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a lot of times when i 'look the otherw way' on the smaller points that aren't hurting anyone, eg NASA or perhaps teh FDA--- i do it cause i don't want to be a legalist and not hurting anyone really.
but also cause it's too easy to say "if you want it, get it in the constitution". 1. if there's a burden to be put on someone of such weight, i'm even more strongly gonna find for the people who want the law that it's okay, cause they're th majority even if they can't get super majority to change the text of the const. not just cause i don't want to engage in judicial law making. defer the policy or "intent" to them, defer to them in all ways 2. a lot of times it's not that the super majority doesn't exist to make somehting like NASA etc, it's just that they can't agree on the wording. the conservatives know of the curse of the law. give an inch, take a mile. make a law, take too much inadvertently. etc. and it's more a practical problem they can't do it.

my 'throw caustion to the wind' liberal streak even in these rare situations, isn't totally unbridled and unreasoned.

[add]

[img]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d160/wisper3/youpay.jpg[/img]

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1926502' date='Jul 21 2009, 11:27 AM'][/quote]
Two words: Field. Day.

I was saying so in jest. Glad you laughed about it.

[quote name='apparently' post='1931492' date='Jul 25 2009, 09:27 AM'][img]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d160/wisper3/youpay.jpg[/img][/quote]
I guess I forgot about that aspect... Remind me to stick it to the man whenever I can... except, I guess I can be jailed for sticking it to the man (ie protesting/praying in front of an abortion clinic)

[add]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1931832' date='Jul 25 2009, 06:49 PM']I guess I forgot about that aspect... Remind me to stick it to the man whenever I can... except, I guess I can be jailed for sticking it to the man (ie protesting/praying in front of an abortion clinic)[/quote]

the state of Texas wants out of the obamacare.
Sacred Music Man does your counties universal health care pay for abortions?

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1929007' date='Jul 22 2009, 10:29 PM']That's been exactly my point all along, and something Madison was getting at in the quotes. He was basically saying that it would be utterly pointless to enumerate those powers to Congress if the general welfare clause was granted it the authority to do anything it saw fit to be in the general welfare. Because if that were the case, than there would be no use at all for the enumerated powers.[/quote]


And as interesting as Madison's writtings are, his personal political philosophy was not ratified by the states.




[quote]You're right, if the Congress can't do it, the tenth amendment explicitly states that it is left up to states to decide for themselves. That's why issues like abortion, gay marriage and others should all be left to the states to decide, seeing that the Constitution says nothing about them. And whatever a state decides on the issue, as long as it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights and Article 1, Section 10 (which limits what the states can do), becomes law in the state. Although that's how it was original meant to be, but we've come far from the original meaning of the Constitution and the Federal Government has usurped states' rights a number of times.[/quote]


No.

That is not how it was originally intended to be. If you look at the case law it is very clear that originally the Bill of Rights were protections against the federal government. States could, and did, pass laws which violated individuals Bill of Rights protections. The courts ruled that as it was not the federal government the protections did not apply. In fact the text of the constitution makes it clear that they were originally relevent only to the federal government. The First Ammendment says "Congress shall make no law..." not "No government within the federal system of the United States".

Is the Air Force Constitutional?

I see permission given for Congress to establish a Navy and Army, but nothing about an Air Force.

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1926151' date='Jul 21 2009, 12:01 AM']That medical care issue is iffy, but I believe that it would fall under military spending, seeing that the soldiers were injured while in defense of the country. It would be no different than paying for a medic's services on the field of battle, which is obviously a component of defense spending.[/quote]

Patching up a wounded soldier so he can go back an fight is obviously part of defense spending. I don't see how the veterans care my grandfathers have available to them is pursuant to the defense of the nation.

[quote]And secondly, what exactly do 13 and 14 have to do with what's being discussed here?[/quote]

They substantially expand congressional authority.




[quote]Again, I didn't say anything about the Constitution, just the general welfare clause.[/quote]

The general welfare clause is not part of the constitution?

[quote]So what you said earlier was mistaken. And it is obviously the case that they are the sole arbiters of what is in the general welfare seeing that are the ones that spend the money.[/quote]

They are the sole arbiters of what they believe in in the general welfare. The Executive and Judicial Branch also have some say regarding what the constitutional precedent actually permits.

[quote]This can be seen in the fact that Congress has now spent taxpayer dollars on pretty much anything you can think of, barring flat out paying people's bills for them. The stimulus bill and other pork spending proves this.[/quote]


Pork Barrel spending like the F22?

You want to deal in these generic categories. The F22 is both pork barrel spending and defense spending. There are court imposed limits on spending is constitutional. Perhaps you don't like it but the courts, whole actual duty it is to determine what legislation is and is not constitutional, seem to disagree.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='apparently' post='1932004' date='Jul 25 2009, 08:16 PM']the state of Texas wants out of the obamacare.
Sacred Music Man does your counties universal health care pay for abortions?[/quote]
Probably. I can't remember

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932032' date='Jul 25 2009, 08:45 PM']And as interesting as Madison's writtings are, his personal political philosophy was not ratified by the states.


No.

That is not how it was originally intended to be. If you look at the case law it is very clear that originally the Bill of Rights were protections against the federal government. States could, and did, pass laws which violated individuals Bill of Rights protections. The courts ruled that as it was not the federal government the protections did not apply. In fact the text of the constitution makes it clear that they were originally relevent only to the federal government. The First Ammendment says "Congress shall make no law..." not "No government within the federal system of the United States".[/quote]

So you're going to throw everything Madison said about the general welfare clause out the window?? It doesn't matter at all to you?? I'm sorry, but to not take into consideration the words of James Madison, who mind you is considered the Father of the Constitution, is absolutely stunning to me.


And no, you're the one that is wrong about the Bill of Rights and its application to the states. Most of the first ten amendments, specifically those having to do with personal liberty, were applied to the states through the doctrine of Incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So to say that they don't apply to the states is false.

Lastly, I have a question for you: if like you say, the commerce clause grants Congress the power to spend, what then limits it from perhaps paying my bills, or paying everybody's income in the U.S. through borrowing or engaging in a number of other preposterous things that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in (monetarily that is)?

Edited July 26, 2009 by reelguy227

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932252' date='Jul 26 2009, 12:16 AM']So you're going to throw everything Madison said about the general welfare clause out the window?? It doesn't matter at all to you?? I'm sorry, but to not take into consideration the words of James Madison, who mind you is considered the Father of the Constitution, is absolutely stunning to me.[/quote]

He is considered it. He did not seem to like the title as he favored a government structured in a manner much more analgous to the current British government. I think Madison is very important as a figure to study and have never said otherwise. I did point out that it is the text of the constitution which was ratified by the American people and not Mr. Madison's personal political philosophy.


[quote]And no, you're the one that is wrong about the Bill of Rights and its application to the states. Most of the first ten amendments, specifically those having to do with personal liberty, were applied to the states through the doctrine of Incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So to say that they don't apply to the states is false.[/quote]

Yes. And the 14th Ammendment, along with the other "Civil War Ammendments" were passed almost a century after to Constitution was ratified. You were discussing the origional vision of the framers. I made it clear in the post you are responding to that I was speaking of the origional view of the constitution. And Prior to the Civil War, as the case law shows, the Bill of Rights were not protections from state laws.

[quote]Lastly, I have a question for you: if like you say, the commerce clause grants Congress the power to spend, what then limits it from perhaps paying my bills, or paying everybody's income in the U.S. through borrowing or engaging in a number of other preposterous things that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in (monetarily that is)?[/quote]


What?

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932297' date='Jul 26 2009, 02:31 AM']He is considered it. He did not seem to like the title as he favored a government structured in a manner much more analgous to the current British government. I think Madison is very important as a figure to study and have never said otherwise. I did point out that it is the text of the constitution which was ratified by the American people and not Mr. Madison's personal political philosophy.[/quote]

Just because the text was ratified by the people doesn't mean the enumerated powers section doesn't say what it clearly says. That section is pretty self explanatory.

And, even though Madison's original plan was rejected, he ultimately approved of and defended the final draft, which can be easily seen in his writings in the Federalist. Both in those articles and others, he was a strict constructionist, interpreting the Constitution as it was written and for the most part, never taking a single step beyond what the document plainly states (as did his ally Thomas Jefferson). It is because of this strict method of interpretation and the fact that he was instrumental in the document's passage that I believe his words carry more weight than other founding fathers on how the Constitution should be interpreted today. Specifically in regards to limits on the power of the Federal government and the rights of the states. After all, it was his initial Virginia Plan—though it was watered down—that laid the foundation for the separation of powers and checks and balances that serve as the basis for our Federal government. So with that said, one would think he would know what he was speaking of when concerning the General welfare clause and the like. That is why I quoted him.

My last question is pretty self explanatory. I'm basically saying that, if you say Congress has the ability to spend exorbitant amounts of money because of the commerce clause, than what stops them from engaging in out of control spending? What inhibits their spending if people like yourself take the Commerce clause, and others the General Welfare clause, to mean that Congress has near limitless spending Where do you draw the line??

Edited July 26, 2009 by reelguy227

[Hassan]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932301' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:02 AM']Just because the text was ratified by the people doesn't mean the enumerated powers section doesn't say what it clearly says.[/quote]

I suppose I also agree that the text says what it says

[quote]That section is pretty self explanatory.[/quote]

No, not really. Great legal scholars have been arguing over exactly what it permits for quite some time now.


[quote]And, even though Madison's original plan was rejected, he ultimately approved of and defended the final draft, which can be easily seen in his articles in the Federalist. Both in those articles and others, most of the time he was a strict constructionist, interpreting the Constitution as it was written and for the most part, didn't take a single step beyond what the document plainly said (as did his ally Thomas Jefferson). It is because of this strict method of interpretation and the fact that he was instrumental in the document's passage that I believe his words carry more weight than other founding fathers on how the Constitution should be interpreted today. Specifically in regards to limits on the power federal government and the rights of the states. After all, it was his initial Virginia Plan—though it was watered down—that laid the foundation for the separation of powers and checks and balances that serve as the basis for our Federal government. So with that said, one would think he would know what he was speaking of when concerning the General welfare clause and the like. That is why I quoted him.[/quote]

I understand why you quoted him. And I agree that if you want an understanding of what one major Framer viewed as the propper role and function of government two and a half centuries ago Madison would be a good source.

[quote]My last question is pretty self explanatory. I'm basically saying that, if you say Congress has the ability to spend exorbitant amounts of money because of the commerce clause, than what stops them from engaging in out of control spending? What inhibits their spending if people like yourself take the Commerce clause, and others the General Welfare clause, to mean that Congress has near limitless spending Where do you draw the line??[/quote]

And I will ask what again because I still do not fully understand your question. In the first half you seem to be asking about things stopping congress from spending exorbitant ammounts of money. This is a silly question. The Constitution has not provisions on the ammount congress can spend on licit projects. Your interpretation doesn't prevent them from spending exorbitant sums on the post office. The focal point of our dispute is the areas within which congress can spend money, not how much. After that I don't understand you. you just seem to cut yourself off after "near limitless spending".