Lipstick on the pig [[economy)

[mjs]

10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

{for this, you shall have to prove that it is NOT designated in the Constitution. and FYI, the Courts have held, since it's inception that "providing for general welfare" has the broad interpretation modern liberals give it. that is over 200 years of rulings by folks FAR more well versed in such things than either you or I}

Actually, the states have powers under "providing for the general welfare" and the Feds have none. Feds get their power from having the ever expanding powers to regulate commerce and give away their money and by their money, the Court really means our money. For example, the Feds can't force states to limit drinking to 21, but they can take away almost all highway funding if a state doesn't comply. The Feds can also regulate how much food you grow in your garden because if everyone in Michigan had a garden, it COULD affect the price of produce in California so it "affects interstate commerce".

And this has not existed for 200 years. This interpretation only came into existance after FDR got upset that the US Supreme Court repeatedly ruled the US Consitution prohibited the Fed's from implementing the New Deal. It only came into existance after he threatened to expand the Court so it would be comprised of dozens of Justices who believed we had been "misinterpreting" our Constitution all along. Now, you can understand the difference between strict constructionalists and judicial activists.

[rb336]

Actually, the states have powers under "providing for the general welfare" and the Feds have none.

that is just plain false. links to the actual cases involved and the agruments were posted in a similar thread not too long ago. go back and check them out

[oladub]

If some court held that the Emperor had a beautiful set of clothes, rb336 would insist that to be the case no matter what the Constitution said. The beauty of having a Constitution is that when the smoke clears from some politically apponted justice's ruling, the Constitution is still clear and beckons future court ruling back on track.

We went through this in the dark ages when the Church authorities 'interpreted' scriptures and maintained them in a foreign language chained to inaccessable book cases.. That all fell apart when the Bible was translated into local languages and cheaply distributed to the masses with the Gutenburg press. Rb sides with the authorities because we are apparently too stupid to understand what the 10th Amendment says.

10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not given to having authorities interpret such language to me, I don't understand what the resistance is to having state health care programs instead of an unconstitutional federal program. Anyone who claims the Canadian health care system works must realize that it is actually a bunch of provincial health care programs rather than a federal program. States that manage their budgets better could have better health care programs. State programs could be better managed than programs in far away lobbyist infested Washington.

Massachusetts already has a health care program. Oregon and Tennessee have made progress along the same road. Wisconsin almost had a program but lobbyists poured into the State to effectively kill it.

Another Constitutional option would be to amend the Constitution to allow a federal health care program. There are three ways to amend the Constitution to do so. After all, Woodrow Wilson [[D) managed to amend the Constitution to introduce the federal income tax. It was promoted as a modest 1% tax with the rich paying no more than 7%. Why not similarly amend the Constitution for President Obama's modest health care program?

[ghettopalmetto]

Gotta love it. Oladub contends his own personal interpretation of the Constitution has more merit than a decision made in a court of law.

Get real.

And this gem is an Instant Classic:

State programs could be better managed than programs in far away lobbyist infested Washington.

Massachusetts already has a health care program. Oregon and Tennessee have made progress along the same road. Wisconsin almost had a program but lobbyists poured into the State to effectively kill it.

So, we have to get health care away from the lobbyists in DC, so that lobbyists can flood our state capitals and kill it there instead. Makes perfect sense.

[Lorax]

What Oladub fails to realize, is that this entire exercise is moot, considering most states currently have an entrenched single "health care" insurer running the show already.

With the lack of interest in breaking up monopolies at the state level, what makes you think the states are going to be anything more than hostages to the continued high costs of health insurance?

Look at the bill- it keeps in place the Sherman anti-trust exemption for the health insurance industry, nationwide, so this discussion is pointless without first removing this exemption, so real competition can happen. States could challenge it, so could congress, but it's all about business as usual.

[elganned]

If some court held that the Emperor had a beautiful set of clothes, rb336 would insist that to be the case no matter what the Constitution said.

What the Constitution says is that the courts are charged with interpreting what the Constitution says.

In other words, the Constitution says what the courts say it says.

Game, set, match.

[ccbatson]

Not so fast Elganned...The constitution regulates/stipulates the powers of the court...you have it backwards.

[ghettopalmetto]

Not so fast Elganned...The constitution regulates/stipulates the powers of the court...you have it backwards.

Article 3 specifies the jurisdiction of federal courts. It does not specify their powers or provide for regulation.

The concept of judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison.

[ccbatson]

Jurisdiction, appointments, checks and balances...not merely jurisdiction.

[oladub]

What the Constitution says is that the courts are charged with interpreting what the Constitution says.

In other words, the Constitution says what the courts say it says.

Game, set, match.

Effectively you are correct. Police are charged with following the court's latest interpretation. They have the guns to enforce whatever the courts say. Unlike ghetto, I read what the Tenth Amendment actually says instead of feeling the need to have court oracles divine what they claim it means. Do you really need people to do thinking for you? The 10th Amendment is very clear. No matter how much politically appointed judges try to obfuscate it, no matter how powerful the police state required to enforce the judges' bizarre interpretations, the wording remains clear. If the judges ruled that 2+2 sometimes equals five or that the Emperor really does have an exquisite set of clothes, some kid will always come along and argue with you that such things aren't so. Use your own brains for a change. Meanwhile, why are you so upset? Develop a state health care plan or amend the Constitution to make it say what you want.

Ghetto, it would be much more difficult for lobbyists to focus on fifty capitals. The logistics of such a deployment would be complicated and more expensive. Also, the scrutiny of the local press is often more effective than the more corporate controlled national media. In Massachusetts, the lobbyists failed to stop a State plan. In Washington D.C., they turned Obama's plan into a huge profit maker for the insurance companies.

Lorax, I think you would prefer Ontario's health care plan to Obama's. Ontario is a province which is the rough equivalent to a state as you know. Both Ontario's and Obama's plans provide universal coverage. However, Ontario's is also societally affordable.

Should you ever collectively [[since you abhor individualistic thought) notice that we are bombing at least four countries now without a congressional declaration of war, that our taxes are increasing, our debt is skyrocketing, Wall Street executives are given hundreds of billion$ as a reward for their failures, and our dollar is going down the drain not being linked to any commodity, please consider that none of this might be happening if our Constitution was observed rather than interpreted and that you are collectively responsible for much of this mess because you collectively refuse to acknowledge what the 10th Amendment actually says and vote for candidates who, like dictators, choose to do what they wish rather than observe the restrictions imposed by the Constitution.

[Stosh]

please consider that none of this might be happening if our Constitution was observed rather than interpreted and that you are collectively responsible for much of this mess because you collectively refuse to acknowledge what the 10th Amendment actually says and vote for candidates who, like dictators, choose to do what they wish rather than observe the restrictions imposed by the Constitution

Exactly. If the previous administration hadn't dug this hole for us, measures like this would not be needed. Shit happens.

[ghettopalmetto]

Effectively you are correct. Police are charged with following the court's latest interpretation. They have the guns to enforce whatever the courts say.

Police and other law enforcement agencies enforce legal statutes, not the Constitution. It is the job of the Executive Branch to enforce the Constitution.

Unlike ghetto, I read what the Tenth Amendment actually says instead of feeling the need to have court oracles divine what they claim it means. Do you really need people to do thinking for you? The 10th Amendment is very clear.

I have read the Tenth Amendment as well. Regardless of what you think, our personal opinions on the matter have no legal bearing. We have a system of courts designed explicitly to interpret the law and the Constitution so that people uneducated and untrained in law are not capable of committing demagoguery based on their "feelings".

No matter how much politically appointed judges try to obfuscate it, no matter how powerful the police state required to enforce the judges' bizarre interpretations, the wording remains clear. If the judges ruled that 2+2 sometimes equals five or that the Emperor really does have an exquisite set of clothes, some kid will always come along and argue with you that such things aren't so.

What the courts interpret the law to be is valid--regardless of your personal opinion. If you have a legal basis for challenging a court ruling, we have a system of federal circuit courts, appeals courts, and the Supreme Court, in which you may bring suit against the government. Isn't democracy fantastic?

I find it ironic that it troubles you that professional legal scholars, i.e. judges, may render their interpretation of the law, yet you insist that your own opinion is what really matters. Do explain how you're more qualified to render legal opinions than any of our federal judges.

Use your own brains for a change. Meanwhile, why are you so upset? Develop a state health care plan or amend the Constitution to make it say what you want.

Why amend the Constitution if you don't have to? Congress already has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

[Lorax]

Not so fast Elganned...The constitution regulates/stipulates the powers of the court...you have it backwards.

Yes, and one of those stipulations is that court judges are charged with interpreting the constituion and the attending law as it relates to the case at hand.

[rb336]

Here is an excerpt from the most oft-cited Supreme Court ruling on the "general welfare" clause:
[[from U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 [[1936) 297 U.S. 1 / UNITED STATES
v. BUTLER et al. No. 401.
Argued Dec. 9, 10, 1935.
Decided Jan. 6, 1936.

The action which Congress induces by payments of money to promote the general welfare, but which it does not command or coerce, is but an incident to a specifically granted power, but a permissible means to a legitimate end.

[ccbatson]

Does not command or coerce??....internally inconsistent. Payments of money obtained how? Taxes...hence coercion and command.

[Lorax]

The source of the welfare isn't finally the point- what part of "promote the general welfare" don't you understand?

[oladub]

Police and other law enforcement agencies enforce legal statutes, not the Constitution. It is the job of the Executive Branch to enforce the Constitution. .

10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Really, How hard is it to understand that sentence? Where in the Constitution does it say that President Bush or Obama has the power to send troops into Iraq or Afghanistan without a confressional declaration of war? Where in the Constitution is the power allowing Congress to create a national health care program? Do you really need someone to interpret this simple sentence to mean something quite different than what it says?

What the courts interpret the law to be is valid--regardless of your personal opinion. If you have a legal basis for challenging a court ruling, we have a system of federal circuit courts, appeals courts, and the Supreme Court, in which you may bring suit against the government. Isn't democracy fantastic? .

We have a constitutional republic; not a democracy. Democracies quickly turn into dictatorships because 51% tend to wind up with all the marbles with little protection of minorities.. Bad idea.

I find it ironic that it troubles you that professional legal scholars, i.e. judges, may render their interpretation of the law, yet you insist that your own opinion is what really matters. Do explain how you're more qualified to render legal opinions than any of our federal judges..

It has to do with understanding the difference between being a citizen and a subject. Citizens are more likely to voice their opinions and attempt to utilize their brains rather than defer to authorities. It has been fun watching Obama supporters trying to rationalize Obama's support of the Wall Street bailout and his expansion of Bush's wars - most recenly he even started bombing Yemen.. If a judge says everything is ok, well then it must be ok no matter what the Constitution actually says. You are enablers. You might as well be neocons.

Why amend the Constitution if you don't have to? Congress already has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

I'm looking around. Who mentioned interstate commerce? I agree with not amending the Constitution if not necessary. It would be much simpler to just have states develop their own health care programs if they chose to.

rb, I liked the quote. I guess that it was ok to give the bankers all that money then and create an unpayable deficit.

lorax. the general welfare is different from, say, the welfare of Walll Street bankers. It is a context rather than an order to spend trillions on every whimsical spending program Democrats and Republicans can imagine. Think of doing things for the good of most everyone instead of elites. "Madison argued that there would be no purpose whatsoever for the enumeration of the particular powers if the general welfare clause was to be broadly interpreted. The Constitution granted authority to the federal government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefit of the general welfare of all the people.""
Jefferson was just as clear, writing in 1798, when he said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.""The concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers was picked away at in the latter part of the 19th Century over strong objection by many constitutionalists. But it was not until the drumbeat of fear coming from the Roosevelt administration, during the Great Depression, that the courts virtually rewrote the Constitution by a reinterpretation of the general welfare clause. In 1936 the New Deal Supreme Court told Congress and the American people that the Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to limits being placed on congressional spending. In a ruling justifying the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Court pronounced: "The power of Congress to authorize appropriations of public money for public purposes is not limited by the grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." With the stroke of a pen, the courts amended the Constitution in such a sweeping manner that it literally legalized the entire welfare state, which not surprisingly, has grown by leaps and bounds ever since. Since this ruling, we have rarely heard the true explanation of the general welfare clause as being a restriction of government power, not a grant of unlimited power.
We cannot ignore corporate welfare, which is part of the problem. Most people think the welfare state involves only giving something to the unfortunate poor. This is generally true, but once the principle is established that special benefits are legitimate the moneyed interests see the advantages in influencing the legislative process. Our system, which pays lip service to free enterprise and private-property ownership, is drifting toward a form of fascism or corporatism, rather than conventional socialism. And where the poor never seem to benefit under welfare, corporations become richer." -Ron Paul

[Lorax]

You don't need to lecture me on the meaning of "welfare" as it relates to the constitution.

I understand it's meanings and all it 's forms.

Being a socialist my leanings are toward the original meaning as written.

Corporate welfare makes me ill, and I have written about it ad nauseum, and make sure others know when and were it's happening, as I have consistently on this forum.

[ghettopalmetto]

Oladub, I see you quoted me several times, but I don't see that you responded to what I wrote. Either you're some kind of surreal genius who thinks at a level far above anyone else on this board, or you're ducking the points I made and obfuscating with your tangents.

Please clarify.

[oladub]

Oladub, I see you quoted me several times, but I don't see that you responded to what I wrote. Either you're some kind of surreal genius who thinks at a level far above anyone else on this board, or you're ducking the points I made and obfuscating with your tangents.

Please clarify.

oladub
X Surreal genius
__ Obfuscating duck

note: My wife would probably go along with the duck option because of my household mantra, "What? I didn't hear you". Also today was a particularly tough day for me. I wound up with 8 abandoned horses about which I am far from knowledgeable, had to put them up for sale for lack of hay, have two people claiming that the former owner sold the horses to them, and when I punched a water hole in the creek discovered a trapped fish but my fingers and brain were too cold to provide for its welfare.