New House Rules

[oladub]

Q. Since when does Article I of the Constitution permit the Congress to interpret the law???

A. It doesn't. Article III delegates the powers of interpretation of laws to the Supreme Court.


Q. Since when does Article I of the Constitution permit the Congress to execute [[enforce) the law???

A. It doesn't. Article II delegates powers of enforcement to the Executive Branch.


This rule is just more political posturing by the Know-Nothing party, continuing to speak in vague notions instead of focusing on specific problems. Let the courts and the President do their jobs, so that Congress may do theirs.

More than posturing actually, as it scares the hell out of some because, if enforced, it would end much of the corruption and over-spending in Washington, D.C. that makes it possible for Democrats and Neocons to operate.

The 10th Amendment is succinct. There isn't much room for 'interpretation'. The Constitution does not begin, "We the lawyers and judges", it starts out "We the People". It was written for the people, not special interests hiding behind their highly paid lawyers bent on 'interpreting' everything for their own purposes. Maybe we should start electing senators who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will apply rather than 'interpret' the Constitution.

Congress and the President are both supposed to be observing the Constitution.

If you want a specific problem, try the federal debt and deficit. A couple of months ago, you guys were ranting about Bush's tax cuts for the rich which would have only chipped away about a quarter or third of the annual deficit. Now that Obama has extended those same tax cuts, what is your solution for balancing the budget or something in that direction?

Opinion: Capt. Kirk Was Right -- Read the Constitution

rb, As you know by now, I lean toward Jefferson in the Jefferson/Hamilton debate. You are correct in that we now have two major parties siding with Hamilton in support of an expansive federal government. As usual, by intoning the commerce and general welfare clause, you ignore much of the rest of the Constitution to justify whatever you please. I'll again point out that the general welfare clause refers to everything in the Constitution being done for the welfare of the general population rather than the privileged few. It is not, as you seem to think, a prescription for welfare state programs for either the poor or bankers. It does not override the remainder of the Constitution. It only restricts laws from being too parochial. Such options, however, are permissible at the state level according to the 10th Amendment. Your enthusiastic support for a failing, centralized, corporatist, Hamiltonian, federal power structures continues to amaze me. If you want a single payer health care system, for instance, do so at the state level.

You are welcome to answer the question I asked gp too. "Now that Obama has extended those same tax cuts, what is your solution for balancing the budget or something in that direction?"

[johnsmith]

I'm curious to know, though, how you managed to conclude that government spending is the Number 1 problem in the country.

I don't really give a flying F of what you're curious about.

[rb336]

You are welcome to answer the question I asked gp too. "Now that Obama has extended those same tax cuts, what is your solution for balancing the budget or something in that direction?"

I don't back the tax cut. I back repealing the reagan tax cuts [[thereby making the people who control over 90% of the wealth of our nation pay over 90% of the upkeep), making labor more valuable than investing [[in other words tax less what you earn than what you make gambling in the market, except for long-term investments - i've outlined that more completely elsewhere.) Putting fees on stock transactions. Single-payer health care on the dutch-deutsch model. develop an industrial policy that isn't the"here company X - take this money to move production to indonesia" garbage we've had since reagan. take a look a VAT systems.

Is a healthy population in the best interest of the country as a whole? [[if not yes, then why not?) It is MUCH more cost-effective to handle that at the federal level than at the state level. apart from that, if you vacation in vegas and have a stroke, does nevada pick up the tab or does michigan [[which, by the way, could be considered interstate commerce)? no pesky questions like that on the national level

[johnsmith]

.....Such options, however, are permissible at the state level according to the 10th Amendment.

That's a place where a lot of people seem lost. They seem to think that if the federal gov't is restricted from doing something, then it can't be done on any level, which is incorrect. The 10th Amendment only restricts the federal gov't and leaves the rest to the states or the people.

[gdogslim]

Again, the democrats, Obama included, don't like the fact that the constitution
is slowing them from instituting a socialist wealth redistribution agenda.

Who was it who called the Constitution a g-damn piece of paper? Oh, that's right, the great con president W. People who have been indoctrinated by Fox News have short, simple memories and are the most gullible of God's creatures.

Sorry Charlie; Bush never said that, You have been lied to by the talking head liberal liars who repeat DNC talking points ad nauseam at CBS, PMSLSD, ABC, CNN.

The evidence
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html
"There's no record of Bush ever using these words in public and no other news organization has reported him using them privately. Thompson based his report on three sources whom he didn't name. He gave the date of the quote as "last month," which would put it sometime in November 2005.
Thompson told us he once removed the story from his Web site when others raised doubts and no other news organization came up with a similar story. But he said he later reinstated it and currently believes it to be true. "I wrote the story and I stand by it," Thompson said in a telephone interview.
Thompson's "gut" has proven to be a unreliable guide in the past, however. He has admitted quoting trusted sources in the past who later turned out to be frauds -- twice. "

[ghettopalmetto]

That's a place where a lot of people seem lost. They seem to think that if the federal gov't is restricted from doing something, then it can't be done on any level, which is incorrect. The 10th Amendment only restricts the federal gov't and leaves the rest to the states or the people.

It was way too late for that argument. The federal government had already been vested in Medicare and Medicaid, which threatened fiscal solvency. You can't truthfully argue that the federal government had no interest in regulating the health insurance industry.

While it's nice to think that our individual states give half a shit about us, the fact is that 48 of the 50 states had no universal health coverage. Why not? Did each of our states really think that we're better off with either no health insurance, or premiums that double every 10 years?

[Detroitej72]

Actually, reducing deficit spending would be the exact opposite of what Obama is and will continue doing. #1 is a definite start to fix what ails this country.

Seems your beloved Republicans are doing an about face:
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AhnKpazp46...ngress_deficit

Yes sir, they sure are putting spending reductions as their #1 priority. Looks like they have gotten egg on their faces the first week in power!

[oladub]

Is a healthy population in the best interest of the country as a whole? [[if not yes, then why not?) It is MUCH more cost-effective to handle that at the federal level than at the state level. apart from that, if you vacation in vegas and have a stroke, does nevada pick up the tab or does michigan [[which, by the way, could be considered interstate commerce)? no pesky questions like that on the national level

A healthy population is in the best interest of the state, country, world, and presumably universe. The logical extension of your argument is that if it is so much more cost effective at the national level then at the state level, then imagine how much more efficient a one world government could be at dispensing health care. It is more efficient for corporate lobbyists to focus all their attention in one place than in 50 state capitols of course. However, I would go back a step and argue that it would be more efficient at the state level than at the national level. In Canada, for instance, health care plans operate at the provincial level at 60% the cost of US health care. Provinces have agreements working out the details of the care of visitors. I recently talked to a Canadian cousin who explained to me how Ontario's plan covered and didn't cover him when he spent months at a time in Florida. He does buy some insurance coverage for such trips but if it is anything major that can be covered in Ontario, he makes the trip.Just think of driver's licenses and auto licenses which are issued by respective states but honored in others.

gp: "It was way too late for that argument. The federal government had already been vested in Medicare and Medicaid, which threatened fiscal solvency. You can't truthfully argue that the federal government had no interest in regulating the health insurance industry.

While it's nice to think that our individual states give half a shit about us, the fact is that 48 of the 50 states had no universal health coverage. Why not? Did each of our states really think that we're better off with either no health insurance, or premiums that double every 10 years?"

The federal government does have an interest in insurance, education, etc. because, for instance, it insures it's employees and armed service members. In addition, when crimes cross state lines or enter the country, more than one state, or no states might be involved. Does it have an interest in overriding in-state policies? Probably not according to the 10th Amendment We are also vested in unconstitutional, not declared by Congress, wars. Bankruptcy and death are problems associated with ignoring Constitutional guidelines.

State governments are voted in by the same folks who vote in federal governments. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Montana voters, as examples, have made better choices than voters in New Jersey, California, New York, Michigan, and your South Carolina. You get what you vote for. I complain about the high taxes in Wisconsin but acknowledge that they are spent fairly well. I don't mind paying for good schools. What I do mind is the federal government taxing me to pay for the mess that Californians have voted for. If the 10th Amendment wasn't ignored, it wouldn't be such a problem.

It isn't only you and rb who want everything run in DC. So do corporate interests. Some of you guys were even supporting the recent bill authored by Monsanto. Yet every time I mention the existence of the 10th Amendment, I get a reaction from Democrats similar to that of vampires seeing the sun rise or or witches when confronted with silver crosses.

[rb336]

What I do mind is the federal government taxing me to pay for the mess that Californians have voted for. If the 10th Amendment wasn't ignored, it wouldn't be such a problem.

nice change in the subject

It isn't only you and rb who want everything run in DC. So do corporate interests. Some of you guys were even supporting the recent bill authored by Monsanto. Yet every time I mention the existence of the 10th Amendment, I get a reaction from Democrats similar to that of vampires seeing the sun rise or or witches when confronted with silver crosses.

1) I don't "want everything run in DC." Only things that make sense
2) You mention the Tenth on virtually everything you dislike. Your use of it has become meaningless. Reserve it to things that aren't trumped by the General Welfare Clause.

[oladub]

nice change in the subject

1) I don't "want everything run in DC." Only things that make sense
2) You mention the Tenth on virtually everything you dislike. Your use of it has become meaningless. Reserve it to things that aren't trumped by the General Welfare Clause.

No change of subject intended; an example of where the 10th Amendment comes into play when ignored.

I wouldn't mind a well run single payer health care system with tort reform run by my state just like Ontario's. I rather like the good schools, universities, roads, libraries, and some other things that State and local governments now provide. No I don't like the bloated, unaffordable, corporatist Obamacare plan lobbyists bequethed us at the national level. I don't like the 16th Amendment either but until or if it is overridden, the 10th Amendment allows a federal incoe tax. You exaggerate. Where in your Constitution, we aren't talking about liberal talking points here, does it say that the General Welfare Clause trumps anything? The general welfare clause just requires laws to benefit the general population as opposed to buoying parochial interests. Again, general welfare does not mean the same as welfare state policies for the rich or poor. "General' as opposed to 'parochial', 'welfare' as opposed to 'harm'. The general welfare clause is in no way inconsistent with the 10th Amendment... except in your understanding of it.

[ghettopalmetto]

Adding $230 billion to the federal debt? New House rules say that we can just ignore it!

CBO says health care repeal would deepen deficit

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 6, 2011; 11:50 PM

Rescinding the federal law to overhaul the health-care system, the first objective of House Republicans who ascended to power this week, would ratchet up the federal deficit by about $230 billion over the next decade and leave 32 million more Americans uninsured, according to congressional budget analysts.

The rough estimate by the Congressional Budget Office also predicts that most Americans would pay more for private health insurance if the law were repealed. The 10-page forecast was delivered Thursday to House Speaker John A. Boehner [[R-Ohio), installed a day earlier to shepherd the new GOP majority. He immediately dismissed it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

By golly, there's LEADERSHIP for ya! Clearly, the GOP is focused on FACTS and not IDEOLOGY. Way to fight for the common man!

[johnsmith]

Where in your Constitution.....does it say that the General Welfare Clause trumps anything? The general welfare clause just requires laws to benefit the general population as opposed to buoying parochial interests. Again, general welfare does not mean the same as welfare state policies for the rich or poor. "General' as opposed to 'parochial', 'welfare' as opposed to 'harm'. The general welfare clause is in no way inconsistent with the 10th Amendment

I agree completely. The way that clause has been warped basically means the federal gov't can do absolutely anything it wishes, as long as it claims that it's for the "general welfare." If it trumps the 10th Amendment, then why was the 10th Amendment even necessary? Does the 10th Amendment even mean anything then? If the federal gov't can do anything in the name of "general welfare", then there are no powers left to reserve to the states. The notion that the GW clause "trumps" anything in the Constitution is quite a laugh indeed.

Question to ponder: If the General Welfare clause means anyone can receive a paid-in-full living off the federal gov't/productive taxpayers, then why weren't welfare handouts started immediately in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted? Why did welfare payouts not even take any form whatsoever until the '30s and further more in the '60s? No need to post an answer here, just a thought, because it's obviously not what the GW clause means or intends.

[ghettopalmetto]

Clearly, the opinions of brilliant legal scholars on Detroityes.com trump any precedents set by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Why? Because THEY SAY SO, that's why!

[oladub]

Clearly, the opinions of brilliant legal scholars on Detroityes.com trump any precedents set by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Why? Because THEY SAY SO, that's why!

Clearly, the opinion of one who believes in the dictates of in the managerial class instead of the opinions of 'we the people' and is unable to address the questions posed in johnsmith's last paragraph. I do hope that the Supreme Court never rules that 2+2 can also equal 5 or whatever feels good.

It is understandable though. Were the 10th Amendment applied to every piece of legislation, the roof would come crashing down on liberal and neocon wars, overspending, and corruption. Libs and neocons would have to create for themselves a new Raison d'être. Of course they could reform and take their merry sideshows to the state level to improve health care, education, and so forth at that level. But, alas, doing so would be without the patina of imperial importance and without the adoration of massive hoards of lobbyist groupies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

[rb336]

Again, general welfare does not mean the same as welfare state policies for the rich or poor.

now you are throwing an entirely different term into the argument, as you have, yet again, lost

[maxx]

A false dilemma is committed when an artificial limitation is placed on available options. The false dilemma you're imposing is that America's choice is between the previous and new systems. However, during the unfolding of the healthcare debacle, much of the country agreed that it wanted reform but not what was being forced down its throat.

No, that is the choice the Republicans are claiming. They could improve on the new healthcare law, but they prefer to go through a pointless song and dance about repealing it. When you talk about "much of the country", you are talking about a variety of opinions from those who wanted a public option for everyone to tea partiers who didn't know that Medicare was a gov. program to people who wanted no change at all. It's interesting that when you ask people about certain aspects of the new law, they want the donut hole closed, the end of pre-existing conditions, more options for insurance like what the exchanges offer, fewer profits for the for-profit health insurance companies and what they don't want are Republican propaganda lies like "death panels" which were never a part of the bill. So just what parts of the new law do "much of the country" not like?

[maxx]

Originally Posted by oladub
Again, general welfare does not mean the same as welfare state policies for the rich or poor.

maxx: Do you think the founders even envisioned present-day welfare programs? Welfare refers to the well-being of someone which would include his/her health. The founding fathers were not so far-sighted that they could have forseen what modern medicine does, but I don't think they would have preferred a nation where only the wealthy had access to it.

And on a similar note, I heard someone describe the founders' concept of "pursuit of happiness" and it had nothing to do with hedonism.

[Chuck La Chez]

So just what parts of the new law do "much of the country" not like?

Death panels and forced/coerced participation.

[maxx]

oladub: If you want a single payer health care system, for instance, do so at the state level.

And is that the way you would have stopped slavery, state by state? Enforced civil rights? Given women the vote?

[maxx]

Death panels and forced/coerced participation.

I already said the "death panels" were never in the law. That is a rightwing lie, and the Dems should call it such and fight for end-of-life counseling instead of letting it die. That won't stop the Republicans from fighting over every other thing. In fact, I think it just encourages them.

Are you also opposed to hospitals being forced to treat anyone who comes through their doors?

Incidentally, HMOs have panels similar to "death panels" because they determine who receives care and who doesn't.

[Chuck La Chez]

I already said the "death panels" were never in the law.

I know. I figured you'd get worked up. LOL.

Seriously, I don't care. I'm opposed to it. I think it's as stupid as Social Security. We're a country of decent people. Whether it's people dying in the streets from cancer or old people freezing to death, we're willing to help prevent it. However, because politicians get elected by promising something to everyone, we have these ridiculous systems that don't offer the bare basics to the poor but continually improving charitable treatment at the expense of good Americans.

I know there is no real health crisis in our country that justifies giving control of my health over to the government. The Dem's bogey man is people dying in the streets as a result of lack of health insurance. One group of rich people will get richer off the system so they financially back it. In no time, half of our country is turned into mindless zombies crying about what if, what if.

I'm too old to be tricked any more.

[old guy]

Excellent new rule!
We all know Pelosi could care less about the constitution. Thats why Obama don't care will be held unconstitutional.
The democrats are afraid of the Constitution, they hate it, Obama despises the Constitution and will do anything he possibly can to go around it to push his socialist agenda.
Just about anything the libs are scream out against, I am for it.

Why would someone that despises the Constitution teach Constitutional Law? After 8 years of Bush, I found the idea of having someone that understood Constitutional Law becoming president an incredible opportunity for our country.

[maxx]

Seriously, I don't care. I'm opposed to it. I think it's as stupid as Social Security. We're a country of decent people. Whether it's people dying in the streets from cancer or old people freezing to death, we're willing to help prevent it.

Oh? Then why are so many people dying for lack of health care?
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...e-study-finds/
Or do you just put your head in the sand and say you don't believe these figures?

However, because politicians get elected by promising something to everyone, we have these ridiculous systems that don't offer the bare basics to the poor but continually improving charitable treatment at the expense of good Americans.

Why don't we see if this system does more than the bare basics? The uninsured have been getting the bare basics for quite a while. And who are these "good Americans"?

I know there is no real health crisis in our country that justifies giving control of my health over to the government.

Hundreds of thousands dying for lack of healthcare in this country is not a crisis?

The Dem's bogey man is people dying in the streets as a result of lack of health insurance.

What Dem has used those words?

One group of rich people will get richer off the system so they financially back it.

If there was a public option, this would not be the case.

In no time, half of our country is turned into mindless zombies crying about what if, what if.

Please explain.

I'm too old to be tricked any more.

Sounds to me like you've already been tricked by Boehner and Co. He is still calling the U.S. healthcare system the greatest in the world. Is he that ignorant or that big a liar?

[Chuck La Chez]

Oh? Then why are so many people dying for lack of health care?

They're dying for lack of immortality. Life is a terminal condition.

[maxx]

Some are dying sooner than they should have to or do you believe we should not flout the creator's will when it comes to health issues?

I know of someone who has lived with a medical condition all her life which forces her to use two crutches. She has advanced degrees and works. She has no health insurance and last I heard, she had developed a very painful condition in her hips. I hope she is finally getting some relief through the new group set up for people with pre-existing conditions.

I find your approach to this issue cavalier and callous.