Healthcare....again

[Hassan]

I'll ask you again. Is spending money on vetern medical coverage and an air force constitutional?

[reelguy227]

Ok, I worded it wrong. Where do you draw the line on what congress can spend the money of its constituents on?? Not on how much it can spend, my apologies. What is to prevent it from, say, paying my bills?

No, veteran medical coverage is not constitutional in my eyes.

And as far as the air force goes, it was originally formulated under the Army. So in that respect, it is constitutional.

Edited July 26, 2009 by reelguy227

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932324' date='Jul 26 2009, 01:52 AM']Ok, I worded it wrong. Where do you draw the line on what congress can spend the money of its constituents on?? Not on how much it can spend, my apologies. What is to prevent it from, say, paying my bills?

No, veteran medical coverage is not constitutional in my eyes.

And as far as the air force goes, it was originally formulated under the Army. So in that respect, it is constitutional.[/quote]
The line should be drawn based on what the constituents want. That would fall under the power of the people.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1932324' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:52 AM']Ok, I worded it wrong. Where do you draw the line on what congress can spend the money of its constituents on?? Not on how much it can spend, my apologies. What is to prevent it from, say, paying my bills?

No, veteran medical coverage is not constitutional in my eyes.

And as far as the air force goes, it was originally formulated under the Army. So in that respect, it is constitutional.[/quote]
I would say medical coverage for veterans and federal employees isn't guaranteed by the constitution, but offering such an employer to employee benefit isn't a violation of the constitution. The problem when people wave the healthcare plans of veterans and congressmen as examples of what the citizens deserve is that they are saying the federal government must provide an employee benefit as a right due to all citizens. If you want federal healthcare benefits, go work for Uncle Sam. I am sure the Chosen One has plenty of available spots for you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

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

it seems like the 'do' v. 'spend' distinction i drew best serves teh general welfare clause vis a vis the enumerated powers.
we've established that the spending clause isn't intricately connected to the enumerated powers per a textual reading-- they're indpendant ideas.
the only way you could connect them, is by the policy observation of 'essentially limitless power' and/or histiroical arguments. these both though, even if true, contravene the textual reading of spending and enumeration clauses are indpendant.


cause ya can't deny, even if you use those two considerations above, that the text will be butchered, at least to some extent. strict constructionalism per limiting what congress can do, yes--- strict per a textual reading, no. there's always a give and take even with conservative principels, textually. just as there are per principles like "defer to the states" v. 'judicial activism' (which reading into it by history and policy does).
there's nothing 'clear' about limit congreses spending power so fiercely. it's almost just a polar end of what could be done. on the one end limitless, on the other end, very limited. neither are clearly what should be done.

i known this idea of 'do' v. 'spend' is merely a creation of myself. but, it's at least more faithful to the text. but at least it does strike a middle ground that isn't present when you go to the extremes-- both per policy, even conservative ideals (though also a balance wtih somewhat liberal), and textually.

yeah i'm hardcore moderate, all the way. not your everyday wishy washy moderate.

[reelguy227]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1934124' date='Jul 28 2009, 04:38 PM']I would say medical coverage for veterans and federal employees isn't guaranteed by the constitution, but offering such an employer to employee benefit isn't a violation of the constitution.[/quote]

The reason I consider those things a violation of the Constitution is because Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison have clearly and easily explained to us that they are—and I consider them the best interpreters of anything constitutional, seeing that they lived in that time and had firsthand knowledge of the events that were so critical to this nation's founding. So I always look to what they had to say on what the federal government's powers are before going to some scholar of today.

Ultimately, the way they put it—and its pretty common sensical to me—is that if it's not in Article 1, Section 8 Congress can't do it. Plain and simple. And the most eye opening quote about the bounds of our Congress's power was stated by Thomas Jefferson, and this is what he said:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition."

What he said above is exactly what I believe regarding the bounds of Congress. Hassan and yourself may disagree with me, but that's alright, because this America and you guys have a right to disagree with me, but that's what I believe and I won't back down on it. I'm not going to continued beating a dead horse.

Edited July 29, 2009 by reelguy227