Health care: Going from broken to broke

[ghettopalmetto]

Something has to be explicitly delegated in order for Congress to take action on it without amending the Constitution.

Please cite:

1. Clause in Constitution where this is stated and/or
2. Supreme Court decision that rendered this opinion.

It's funny how you post this unsubstantiated bullshit line of reasoning, and then explain how the federal government has the power to regulate airplane traffic and motor fuel taxes. WHA??? My copy of the Constitution doesn't say jack shit about airplanes or motor fuel taxes. Therefore, the FAA is "unconstitutional" by your reasoning, right?

[oladub]

Please cite:

1. Clause in Constitution where this is stated and/or
2. Supreme Court decision that rendered this opinion.

It's funny how you post this unsubstantiated bullshit line of reasoning, and then explain how the federal government has the power to regulate airplane traffic and motor fuel taxes. WHA??? My copy of the Constitution doesn't say jack shit about airplanes or motor fuel taxes. Therefore, the FAA is "unconstitutional" by your reasoning, right?

I answer all the questions you throw at me as best as I can but you come back empty handed in your search for any mention in the Constitution of any delegated power to substantially control education, health care, or student loans in the Constitution. Had you read or comprehended anything I wrote, you may have noticed references to the 10th Amendment which I will now cut and paste for you.

"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."

It is pretty straight forward. For instance, the powers to coin money, appoint ambassadors, authorize jury trials, or collect income tax are delegated by the Constiution. It was more than I could take in the first time I realized what it was saying too because it is so contrary to everything I had assumed and been told about the relationship of the federal and state governments and the limits of federal government power. Many years ago, it was hard to adjust to the fact there was no Santa Claus either even though people I trusted told me otherwise. Same thing. It's not necessarily a bad thing if you are a Democrat. You can either amend the Constitution to do big government things like Wilson did or do them at the state level. Why not have an affordable statewide single payer plan like Ontario's instead of the inferior universal corporate enrichment plan offered by Obama?

As to your second paragraph, I already answered all your questions. Please re-read. Only the federal government Constitutionally has the power to negotiate all sorts of agreements with foreign countries so the FAA or some other federal construct would have to deal with those countries just as historically the federal govenment was charged with doing with shipping. We don't have to ignore the Constitution because clippers replaced smaller vessels or airships replaced flying clippers. States are not even allowed to conduct certain deals with foreign governments. One huge difference between the the FAA and education, health care, and student loans, which you don't seem to understand, is that the latter can be orchestrated without any involvement of the federal government with or without the 10th Amendment.

My wife told me that she read a story about when some early European sailing ships were sighted off the East Coast. A party of Indians viewing them in the distance were sure that they were only clouds. Only the Shaman with them had a loose enough mind to realize they were some sort of ships. That's what happens when people read the 10th Amendment for the first time. They say, "it can't mean that. Surely there must be some judicial treatises to explain it means something other than what it says."; and there are. So when some 'bullshit' little kid says the emperor has no clothes, do seek the assurance of like minded people that indeed the Emperor's powers are everything they are said to be.

[ghettopalmetto]

I would say that regulation of the financial sector, e.g. subsidizing the student loan industry, most definitely falls within the purview of the federal government.

And why not have a universal single-payer health insurance system, you ask? I would prefer that route myself, or at the very least, a public option for health insurance, but as we've seen over the course of the past year, something like that is politically untenable at this time.

[johnsmith]

"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."

What part of this do you not understand?

Looks like YOU'RE the one who doesn't understand the Tenth Amendment.

Your highlighted part of the amendment only proves oladub's point to be valid.

Federal gov't not delegated the power. - Check
States not prohibited the power by the Constittuion. - Check
Powers are then reserved to the States or to the People. - Check.

Oladub -1
ghettopalmetto - 0

[oladub]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States...

What part of this do you not understand?

I would say that regulation of the financial sector, e.g. subsidizing the student loan industry, most definitely falls within the purview of the federal government.

Read on just a little further. The next clause is,

"are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You have to read the whole sentence to understand it. The second clause you highlighted refers to powers the Constitution specifically forbids states from having such as having their own import taxes on other states' products. Put it all together, and it says that the states and the people have power over everything not already delegated to the federal government or specifically forbidden of state governments.

"Subsidizing the student loan industry" is not a power delegated by the Constitution to the Federal government nor is it a power fodbidden of the states. Therefore, states, rather than the federal government, may "subsidizing the student loan industry". As an aside, President Obama claimed his student loan putsch was to save taxpayers money rather than create more spending subsidies.

edited to add - the quote at the top is what ghettopalmetto has since edited from this thread. My response it to what has been already removed.