When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
johngalt
13 years ago
And the liberal/progressive viewpoint is shown very well by the last guy to speak in that clip.
“If congress decides to do something, then yes they have the power to do so.”
Think about that comment for a second. He has essentially stated that congress can do whatever they want. Stengel, in his Time piece on the Constitution, stated, in effect, the same thing by arguing that the Constitution neither limits the government, nor is it, in fact, anything other than a guideline for the government to go by.
Now think about all of the rights actually listed within the Constitution, from the Bill of Rights on. One guy, Stengel, basically states that government does not have to abide by those. The other guy’s statement says Congress can do whatever it wishes.
Now think about the outrage of those two guys against the government if Congress were to pass a law that limited free speech, that affected their ability to get on shows like this and speak their mind.
These guys are seriously mistaken in their beliefs about the Constitution, and in so doing, they attribute much more power to the federal government than the founding fathers ever had in mind.
johngalt
13 years ago
Another point;
George Will asks a very good question to that panel, but I don’t believe they understand the point in asking such a question, particularly with that last guy’s answer.
“Can congress pass a law saying all obese people have to go to weight watchers?”
Good question, and the last guy basically answers yes. Ok then, from that answer, then congress has the power to pass laws, say, that force people to shop, or don’t shop, at Walmart. That all citizens must own at least one GM or Chrysler product. That all homeowners must purchase a solar panel installation or a windpower generator for their home. That all lighting in a home must be government appr………..oh wait, the government’s already done that. I think you get the point.
This court case could turn out to be the most important Supreme Court case ever in our history, as it doesn’t just deal with the field of healthcare, but rather, the power of the federal government over our lives. If left to stand, Obamacare can usher in a whole new range of government edicts and directives controlling your very life, 24/7/365/forever.
Those without objective reasoning amongst us do not, and will not, realize this, of course. They naively believe that the issue is solely oriented on healthcare, and the MSM and liberal/progressive politicians are feeding them this false narrative. They do not realize that sooner or later, if Obamacare, as written, is allowed to stand, that government will limit, or abolish, a right, freedom, or liberty, that they, themselves, hold near and dear to their hearts.
Thomas Jefferson, perhaps, said it best;
“A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….”
Poppa_T
13 years ago
Love that guy. He’s no William F. Buckley but he does get the point across or he would if he could get them to close their pie-holes and listen instead of continually chirping liberal nonsense. But the question he posed is not far fetched at all especially now that recent studies have determined that sitting is just as bad for you as smoking.
So what can we expect our Federal Government to do to save us from ourselves yet again? In light of the new warning labels for tobacco products can we expect the Feds to place pictures of obese lard butts on every office chair? Will the purple cankles of a diabetes sufferer grace the upholstery of the foot rest of my next lay-z-boy? Perhaps the Commerce clause can be used to require all office workers to stand at least half the day? Who knows?
And the liberal/progressive viewpoint is shown very well by the last guy to speak in that clip.
“If congress decides to do something, then yes they have the power to do so.”
The last guy in the clip is Michael Eric Dyson. He’s a blowhard who loves using big words and constructing convoluted compound sentences, but who often makes no sense at all. I cringe whenever I see that he’s going to be participating in some panel discussion.
The first thing that I want to keep emphasizing is that ObamaCare is built on RomneyCare which was built on the “sensible GOP private sector alternative” to HillaryCare, advanced by GOP senators Dole and Grassley, and that the Dole/Grassley plan, like RomneyCare, was built on a mandate to purchase insurance.
I’d argue that Will’s analogy is fatally flawed. It sounds absurd on its face (that the government could mandate Americans to go to Weight Watchers). In the first place, it’s never been shown that going to Weight Watchers is an effective strategy for eliminating obesity and producing actual health benefits, whereas it’s been shown (e.g. Massachusetts) that mandates ARE effective in eliminating non-covered individuals who then burden the government when they are injured or become sick and require a government-sponsored bail out.
There are very good precedents for the government requiring consumers to purchase things. We can’t purchase a less expensive car, which doesn’t have airbags. We are required to purchase private parking spaces when government doesn’t allow us to park on taxpayer supported streets. We are required to pay for immunizations before the government will allow our children to go to school. We are required to pay a tire disposal fee when we buy new tires, even if we own private property on which we can dispose of our own tires. Same thing for computers and related products. We have to purchase a helmet if we wish to ride a motorcycle and we must purchase a helmet for our children if we want our children to ride a bicycle. We have to pay trash collection fees, whether or not we generate trash. We have to buy car insurance.
The health insurance mandate simply says that, if you want to utilize the American health care system, you have to buy health insurance. I’d be in favor of adding a clause to state that, if you don’t want to purchase health insurance, you can avoid it if you agree that all of your health care needs will be met outside of the American health care system, e.g. perhaps seeking health care in Cuba, following the model of Hugo Chavez.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Poppa_T
13 years ago
I’m sorry Larry but I would argue that your rhetoric is “fatally flawed”. First off you are right in that we can’t buy a cheaper car because air bags ARE mandatory. If the FEDERAL government and the big three had not engaged in crony capitalism, designed to drive up the cost of domestically produced vehicles while limiting competition from foreign vehicles and interfered with our laissez-faire capitalist system then we COULD buy a less expensive vehicle.
Next you are only required to have your child immunized in order to put the little cherub in government school if you choose to home school you don’t have to do so, individual choice and liberty, also it is the State and not the Federal government that enacts such laws. That also applies to most of your other examples, scrap tire fees, bicycle and motorcycle helmets laws are established by the State. Trash and parking fees are enacted by municipal governments, not the State, and most definitely not the Feds.
Now I have no problem with the people of Massachusetts enacting a health plan containing an individual mandate that is why we have a 9th and 10th Amendments because there are issues best decided locally. But the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to impose their will on us in this manner!
P.S. you don’t have to have car insurance if you live in New Hampshire, at least as of last year you didn’t, I don’t know about now. A mere three or four years ago there were 5 States that also allowed you to self insure but alas that has changed.
@poppa: Here’s another example at the Federal level: The government requiring the purchase of more expensive fuels, to meet federally mandated standards for a percentage of fuel being formulated from renewable sources. This was passed by a GOP controlled Congress and signed into law by a GOP President.
The point is that the government can and does have the legal right to compel purchases of commodities and instruments which relate to interstate commerce. There are existing examples. The above are just some from the top of my head. I’m sure that there are others.
The point is that the government can and does have the legal right to compel purchases of commodities and instruments which relate to interstate commerce.
Not exactly, Larry. And it doesn’t go for any of your other examples, either. In your examples, the government doesn’t compel you to engage in commerce. It merely regulates what you can purchase if you so decide to engage in that commerce. That is the major difference between Obamacare, and the examples you gave, hence, my statement that this court case could be the harbinger of even more power grabs by the federal government, compelling people to engage in commerce that they otherwise might not engage in. If you don’t see the difference, then it that fact explains quite clearly to others why you seem to support Obamacare.
Here’s another example at the Federal level: The government requiring the purchase of more expensive fuels, to meet federally mandated standards for a percentage of fuel being formulated from renewable sources. This was passed by a GOP controlled Congress and signed into law by a GOP President.
The difference is that Obamacare regulates inactivity. You can choose not to buy fuel. You cannot choose not to be enslaved by Obamacare. And if Congress can regulate inactivity, it can force democrats to buy Sarah Palin’s book.
Liberal commentators refuse to follow the logic and honestly answer George Will. They all understand that, to their way of thinking, Obamacare means that Congress can tell us to do virtually anything, because nearly everything is related to healthcare.
Don’t worry Mister Blue, we’ll take good care of you.
Just think of it as sense and not surrender.
But never think again, that you can ever think again.
Or you’ll get something you’ll remember.
What will it take to whip you into line?
A broken heart?
A broken head?
It can be arranged.
It can be arranged.
In your examples, the government doesn’t compel you to engage in commerce. It merely regulates what you can purchase if you so decide to engage in that commerce.
Exactly!
Poppa_T
13 years ago
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: The Energy Policy Act of 2005! Thank you for that example Larry, I couldn’t have chosen a finer example of crony capitalism myself. When BIG government and BIG business collude together to drive up the prices on commodities, benefit a few large corporations at the expense of their smaller competitors and expand the power of government, screw the people legislation like this is always the result. I remember the libs blowing a gasket when this passed and now you are using it as justification for the further erosion of personal liberties, classic.
Dubya’s 2005 energy act was modified by PrezBO in 2009 by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act these “laws” authorized loan guarantees to many corporations who were to look into “innovative technologies that avoid greenhouse gases” (you know what that means? Taxpayers are on the hook for all their bills once they default on their loans!) and virtually eliminated the tried and true coal fired power plant.
You know Larry crony capitalism is just as harmful when a democrat practices it, as when a repub does it. And doesn’t make it right or just just because it’s been done before.
As an addition to my comment in #7, George Will’s question is an excellent analogy to Obamacare’s mandate, in that it is something that people now choose to engage in, going to WW to lose weight compared to choosing to purchase healthcare insurance. It is the freedom to choose to engage in such commerce.
rich wheeler
13 years ago
J.G. Would certainly agree Congress does not have the right to require W.W. attendance.
Would hope incentives to maintain a healthy weight and reasonably healthy life style,exercise,non smoking can be incorporated into individuals cost for coverage.
Bottom line I don’t think a person who takes reasonable care of himself should be paying for the care of those who through gluttony,adversion to exercise,smoking find themseves in poor health.SURPRISE
Semper Fi George Will one of America’s greatest baseball fans
Would hope incentives to maintain a healthy weight and reasonably healty life style,exercise,non smoking can be incorporated into individuals cost for coverage.
And if that was done solely by the health insurance company, which, as it turns out, was exactly what my own was doing prior to Obamacare, then that is perfectly acceptable. The government requiring healthcare companies to do so is not.
My point to Larry still stands. Government regulation forcing one to engage in commerce is most definitely unConstitutional. Government regulation forcing a person who decides to engage in commerce, to engage in that commerce a certain way, is debatable, but not what the issue of Obamacare’s mandate is all about.
@johngalt,Poppa, Aqua,Gary, and others: Can you at least acknowledge that the “mandate” is not a nefarious socialistic ploy dreamed up and foisted on America by Obama? This was a Republican idea, initially conceived of by Republicans and actually implemented by the person who is currently the front-runner for the 2012 GOP nomination. If we can begin at that point, then perhaps we can discuss the hair-splitting nature of the arguments, themselves, (currently being tossed about) without partisan rancor.
It seems that the majority of you guys are at least accepting (if not being happy about it) of the idea that the government does have the power under the constitution to regulate interstate commercial activity, with the definition of interstate commercial activity being very broad, as codified by Supreme Court decisions.
The argument being used is that an insurance mandate regulates inactivity. The biofuel mandate is (grudgingly) accepted, because there’s supposed to be a free will choice to buy fuel. Likewise, there’s a free will choice to buy an automobile; so that if a person has a philosophical problem with spending hundreds of dollars more to purchase something he doesn’t want (e.g. an airbag), then he can simply make the choice not to buy a car.
I consider this to be a hair splitting argument, for a couple of reasons. In the first place, 99% of Americans will need automobile transportation and there is no practical way to avoid purchasing gasoline containing renewable fuels or riding in cars without air bags.
Let’s look at health insurance. 99% of Americans will need health care or will have a family member, for whom they are responsible, who needs health care. The difference between purchasing an unwanted air bag or unwanted fuel additives, compared to purchasing unwanted health insurance is a legalistic, hair-splitting argument, which has nothing at all to do with real differences in personal liberty, in the two situations. It’s an argument which wouldn’t be made by anyone, save for the ultra-libertarian fringe, had the proposal been made by Republicans, as an alternative to Medicare for all. It’s an argument which wouldn’t be made, were a Republican to suggest replacing Medicare with mandatory private insurance, to be pre-paid during the working years.
It’s an argument which is simply being made because conservatives don’t like Obama and don’t like anything which Democrats do, even when what it is that Democrats are doing is simply stealing an old Republican idea.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
rich wheeler
13 years ago
Larry Exactly If Obama likes it Conservs are against it. Politics as usual.
It’s so tiresome to hear people trying to excuse national level mandates based on the existence of state level mandates.
The States have the power and authority to do things under their individual constitutions that the Fed Gov’t doesn’t have the power and authority to do under the limitations of the US Constitution.
It’s simple really.
See the 10th Amendment for clarification:
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.
Furthermore, having seen the remarkable failure that has occurred in MA, anyone with half the brains of a goose would realize that the magnification of those ideas to a nationwide level is a really, really bad idea.
Can you at least acknowledge that the “mandate” is not a nefarious socialistic ploy dreamed up and foisted on America by Obama?
Whether I acknowledge that or not makes no difference. I do not, and never have, argued that the mandate is a “socialistic ploy” dreamed up and foisted on America by Obama. I have, however, argued, many times, that it runs completely counter to the limitations placed upon the federal government by the Constitution. And, I might add, I would hope that I would have been against this during Clinton’s terms, even if it was proposed and passed by Republicans. I cannot, however, definitively state that I would have, for, that was well over a decade ago and I have learned much more about the Constitution, and the original intents of the founding fathers since that time.
It seems that the majority of you guys are at least accepting (if not being happy about it) of the idea that the government does have the power under the constitution to regulate interstate commercial activity, with the definition of interstate commercial activity being very broad, as codified by Supreme Court decisions.
You assume too much, Larry. As my above paragraph stated, I have learned quite a bit regarding the Constitution, and I now realize that what the liberal/progressives claim about the ‘Commerce clause’ is, in fact, not what it was meant to be. I’ve also learned enough about relevant Supreme Court decisions, particularly those since the late 30’s, when FDR “packed” the court, to realize that the commerce clause itself was expanded more by judicial activism than by anything else. And, as a non-believer in ‘court precedent’, I believe that those Supreme Court decisions are irrelevant, if one considers that a different court can overrule a previous one.
In the first place, 99% of Americans will need automobile transportation and there is no practical way to avoid purchasing gasoline containing renewable fuels or riding in cars without air bags.
Not exactly, Larry. I am quite happy with my 86′ Chevy pickup, even if it gets less mileage than a newer vehicle. I have the option, if I so choose, to purchase, and continue purchasing, used vehicles old enough that I don’t have all of that stuff if I do not want it. The gas issue is one you are semi-correct on. However, I do have the choice, still, of voting in representatives, senators, and a President, who would change those requirements, however unlikely that may be. I also have the option, if I so choose, to purchase an older diesel vehicle an make my own diesel fuel using all manner of feedstock to do so.
Let’s look at health insurance. 99% of Americans will need health care or will have a family member, for whom they are responsible, who needs health care.
And again, that isn’t the point, Larry. I have, at this moment in time, the freedom to take the money I spend on health insurance, place it within an interest bearing account somewhere, to use for my healthcare, or my family’s healthcare, if I feel the health insurance company, or industry, is not doing me justice. Others, who have much higher incomes than I do, have even greater ability to pay for their own. Under full implementation of Obamacare, I lose that freedom, even if I never use it. The point is, that I have that freedom now, and under Obamacare I don’t.
You are arguing as if healthcare and healthcare insurance are one and the same. They are not. The insurance is merely a different method of paying for healthcare, and Obamacare takes away all other methods of paying for it, or it imposes penalties if you decide to pay for your healthcare with something other than healthcare insurance.
It’s an argument which wouldn’t be made by anyone, save for the ultra-libertarian fringe, had the proposal been made by Republicans, as an alternative to Medicare for all.
It’s an argument which is simply being made because conservatives don’t like Obama and don’t like anything which Democrats do, even when what it is that Democrats are doing is simply stealing an old Republican idea.
You cannot definitively state that, Larry. To do so, you would need a time machine and the ability to alter history, so that your Dole/Grassley example passes, in order to find out exactly what conservatives would say about it. As I said, I’d hope that I would be against it even then, but knowing how young, and ignorant, I was at the time, I cannot guarantee that. I can say, however, that knowing what I know now, regarding the Constitution, that I would have been against it no matter who was President, or who initiated the bill, or who was in the majority in Congress. It has nothing to do with Obama. It has everything to do with being in opposition to the Constitution, and the original intent of the commerce clause.
Indeed, Aye, the 10th Amendment gives the States, and the people, broad police powers. It is then up to the individual states themselves as to whether or not to engage in such legislative acts, and only then if it doesn’t encroach upon federal powers granted by the Constitution, or infringe upon individual rights, as delineated by the Constitution, and if it can be reconciled with the particular state’s Constitution.
Nan G
13 years ago
Auto manufacturers are threatening to void engine warranties if certain blends are put into the gas tanks.
So, the gov’t might ”mandate” one thing only to be a cause for great fights in the actual carrying out of the mandate.
And while a presidential go-around of the legislative process might lead to – say, the EPA trying to mandate expensive green policies – the Congress can de-fund or block such.
See: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/169787-house-gop-spending-bill-would-block-epa-climate-rules-for-one-year
As with any philosophy, one of the best tests is to ask: what if it applied to EVERYTHING?
Well, George Will started to do just that with his Weight Watchers’ mandate question.
Does it make sense or not?
What about forcing vegetables on everyone everyday?
In Europe where assisted suicide is legal in a few places it only took 6 years before the move to make sure (by law!) the suicide left all the organs in good enough shape to be harvested!
The studies of who refuses to buy health insurance show that most of the non-compliers are healthy males, single and healthy young couples.
There are also a few who have religious beliefs against owning insurance (Muslims) or seeing doctors (Christian Scientists and a few others).
Will individual conscience have to bend, too?
@John(#19): This was a very well-reasoned, logical presentation of arguments.
As purely a thought exercise, I wouldn’t stridently disagree, but health care is a vexing, practical, real world problem, for which no one, anywhere in the world, has come up with an ideal solution to problems which refuse to go away.
To take on only one of these problems, in direct response to #19:
When people exercise their constitutional right not to purchase health insurance and then get cancer or diabetic ketoacidosis or have a heart attack or get hit by a bus or pick up MRSA in the health club, they still seek medical care — which is then paid for by other people, who did not exercise their constitutional right not to buy health insurance.
If you ever get to the point where you can no longer buy vehicles which don’t have air bags, then that’s solely your problem and not anyone else’s.
@Aye: MA health care has hardly been a “remarkable failure.”
When people exercise their constitutional right not to purchase health insurance and then get cancer or diabetic ketoacidosis or have a heart attack or get hit by a bus or pick up MRSA in the health club, they still seek medical care — which is then paid for by other people, who did not exercise their constitutional right not to buy health insurance.
In order to assume that, one has to assume that people, in general, do not pay their health care bills, or do not pay any of their bills. That is an assumption that takes quite a leap to accept, Larry. For example, at this current time I have healthcare bills from a back injury, and the medical tests taken to diagnose the exact problem. My insurance did not pay for everything, which leaves me to pay the rest, which I am, even If I am not paying it all off at once(CatScans are quite expensive, as I’m sure you know). I am not leaving my bill for anyone else to pick up the tab, however, your statement above assumes that that is exactly what is happening. And I am not alone in this, either.
Yes, the health care issue is a big deal, and no one believes that simply wishing it away will make it non-existent. But this is the same with many other issues as well. The question is; Are we going to go to a system of solving all of our problems and issues by acting in opposition to the Constitution? Because, if you do, then you have rendered it ineffective, and much less than a supreme law of the land. You have given the nation ‘rule by the whim of men’, rather than a nation of law, with rule by law.
And that gets back to George Will’s question, and Michael Dyson’s answer. You may ‘cringe’ and believe he makes no sense at all, however, your arguments are just as crazy as his answer. Whether or not something is being done doesn’t matter in the slightest. The only question is if it can be reconciled with the limitations on power the Constitution places on the federal government.
If you ever get to the point where you can no longer buy vehicles which don’t have air bags, then that’s solely your problem and not anyone else’s.
That will be a sad day. And not because of the airbags.
Yes, the health care issue is a big deal, and no one believes that simply wishing it away will make it non-existent. But this is the same with many other issues as well. The question is; Are we going to go to a system of solving all of our problems and issues by acting in opposition to the Constitution? Because, if you do, then you have rendered it ineffective, and much less than a supreme law of the land. You have given the nation ‘rule by the whim of men’, rather than a nation of law, with rule by law.
We still have to continue the prior discussion on original intent, Constitution-wise.
The above argument, in addition, is a bit of a straw man. I never advocated solving every little problem with a Constitutionally-challenged government program. But health care is 17% of the economy, on a trajectory to increase to 33% of the economy. If it’s true that the debt problem (fueled by health care costs, 50% of which are currently paid for through various government programs) is really a crisis, for which private sector market economics has no answer, then it makes as much sense for the government to create an “unconstitutional” national health care program as it made for the government to create an “unconstitutional” national bank, in a time of similar crisis, e.g.
The most pressing problems facing the new government were economic. As a result of the revolution, the federal government had acquired a huge debt: $54 million including interest. The states owed another $25 million. Paper money issued under the Continental Congresses and Articles of Confederation was worthless. Foreign credit was unavailable.
The person assigned to the task of resolving these problems was 32-year-old Alexander Hamilton. Born out-of-wedlock in the West Indies in 1757, he was sent to New York at the age of 15 for schooling. One of New York’s most influential attorneys, he played a leading role in the Constitutional Convention and wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers, urging support for the new Constitution. As Treasury Secretary, Hamilton designed a financial system that made the United States the best credit risk in the western world.
The paramount problem facing Hamilton was a huge national debt. He proposed that the government assume the entire debt of the federal government and the states. His plan was to retire the old depreciated obligations by borrowing new money at a lower interest rate.
States like Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Virginia, which had already paid off their debts, saw no reason why they should be taxed by the federal government to pay off the debts of other states like Massachusetts and South Carolina. Hamilton’s critics claimed that his scheme would provide enormous profits to speculators who had bought bonds from Revolutionary War veterans for as little as 10 or 15 cents on the dollar.
For six months, a bitter debate raged in Congress, until James Madison and Thomas Jefferson engineered a compromise. In exchange for southern votes, Hamilton promised to support locating the national capital on the banks of the Potomac River, the border between two southern states, Virginia and Maryland.
Hamilton’s debt program was a remarkable success. By demonstrating Americans’ willingness to repay their debts, he made the United States attractive to foreign investors. European investment capital poured into the new nation in large amounts.
Hamilton’s next objective was to create a Bank of the United States, modeled after the Bank of England. A national bank would collect taxes, hold government funds, and make loans to the government and borrowers. One criticism directed against the bank was “unrepublican”–it would encourage speculation and corruption. The bank was also opposed on constitutional grounds. Adopting a position known as “strict constructionism,” Thomas Jefferson and James Madison charged that a national bank was unconstitutional since the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to create a bank.
Hamilton responded to the charge that a bank was unconstitutional by formulating the doctrine of “implied powers.” He argued that Congress had the power to create a bank because the Constitution granted the federal government authority to do anything “necessary and proper” to carry out its constitutional functions (in this case its fiscal duties).
In 1791, Congress passed a bill creating a national bank for a term of 20 years, leaving the question of the bank’s constitutionality up to President Washington. The president reluctantly decided to sign the measure out of a conviction that a bank was necessary for the nation’s financial well-being.
I think that the parallels are striking. Among other things, it shows that the framers of the Constitution had the same sorts of disagreements as you and I are having today. For purposes of this thought experiment, you are James Madison. I’m Alexander Hamilton. George Washington is the pragmatist. He’s the one that we should look to for guidance, in matters such as this.
Can you at least acknowledge that the “mandate” is not a nefarious socialistic ploy dreamed up and foisted on America by Obama?
Oh, I believe it is a nefarious socialistic ploy; maybe not dreamed up by Obama, but definitely foisted on America by Obama. Dole, Grassley, Romney, and any other republican you want to name may have had the idea first, but Obama made it federal, and thus foisted on America.
We have 50 states, (57 if you ask Obama). We should have 50 different experiments and see which one works best. That’s the way it is supposed to work. Each state tries to implement their own solutions to problems they have. Solutions that work are imitated and built on. National healthcare will not work. And if you guys think it is such a great solution, why aren’t you writing letters and angry editorials to the administration demanding all waivers be rescinded?
rich wheeler
13 years ago
Larry If you’re Hamilton be thankful J.G. isn’t Aaron Burr.
Actually, the U.S. does consist of 57 distinct areas. (A fact that I only bring up to annoy people. For all I know, Obama was thinking about varieties of catsup.)
It’s quite funny that you allude to me as being in the role of James Madison, Larry, as he discussed in detail the “necessary and proper” clause, the intent, and why it was written the way that it was. He did so in Federalist Paper, no. 44.
As it is, coupled with the “commerce clause” of which he also spoke at length about, in Federalist Paper no. 42 and 43, the federal government still does not have the power to force, or compel, the people to engage in any particular commerce. Your example might have been closer related to the issue of Obamacare’s mandate, had the Constitution delineated a power to Congress over health care. Your mistake is that you use the commerce clause incorrectly, and in conflict to what Madison wrote about it, to assume powers for congress over our healthcare, and then you double down on that by insisting the “necessary and proper” clause gives Congress the power to make such as law as the O-care mandate.
The gift that is the Federalist Papers provides us with insight as to the intent and meaning of the various clauses and phrases contained within the Constitution. The fact that liberals and progressives purposely avoid these writings in any attempt at defense of their actions accused of being unConstitutional should tell you quite a bit about their actions. Namely, that they have little to no ground to stand upon.
I recommend a quick reading of Federalist Papers, no. 42,43,44 in order to better educate yourself on the intent of those two clauses contained within the Constitution, and their applicability to both your example of a National Bank, and Obamacare.
@John: Hamilton wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist papers, and he clearly disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution as a rigid blueprint to be narrowly interpreted and strictly adhered to, in perpetuity.
The Constitution was written by individuals with conflicting individual opinions, as were the Federalist papers. Madison himself wrote that the Constitution itself was the authoritative blueprint for governance, and not the Federalist Papers. You focus on Madison’s personal interpretation of “necessary and proper,” with which Hamilton doesn’t agree — with Hamilton offering the doctrine of “implied powers.”
If it (meaning Constitutional interpretation) were as simple and straightforward as you (John) imply, then there would be no constitutional disputes. You focus entirely on the views of a politician who shares your views (Madison) and ignore the contrarian views of a politician with whom you disagree (Hamilton). But, you see, it wasn’t Obama and the Democrats who invented the idea of the Constitution as a living document, subject to nuanced interpretation, and granting “implied powers” to Congress. These were views advocated by Hamilton, who was — no less than Madison — an architect of the Constitution.
If the literal interpretation of a law led to an absurd, contradictory, or unjust result, it must be assumed that the legislature did not intend that the law be so interpreted. (One of Hamilton’s aphorisms was, “In law as in Religion, the Letter kills, the Spirit makes alive.”)
This is not an issue that you and I can ever settle between ourselves, because it is an issue which couldn’t be settled even by our great national Founders among themselves. But we can, at least, acknowledge the legitimacy of opposing points of view as being rationally held and based on precedents dating to our national origins.
This is not an issue that you and I can ever settle between ourselves, because it is an issue which couldn’t be settled even by our great national Founders among themselves.
And I never thought that it was, Larry. The number of writings of Hamilton hardly matter, as I point out the writings of the Federalist Papers, by all three authors, depending on who has written about what, so as to explain the intent of the certain clauses and phrases, as they were written at the time. And I wouldn’t say that Hamilton’s writings, in the Federalist Papers clearly disagree with me, or even disagree at all, depending on the particular aspect of the Constitution being discussed.
It seems to me that the difference in opinion between us is that I view those clauses and phrases with a narrow viewpoint, based on an allusion to the Constitution as a severe limitation of federal government power. And you view it with a wide view, attempting to encompass as wide a latitude as possible in order to justify the federal government increasing it’s power to deal with today’s issues.
Your arguments alluding to the Constitution as a “living document” lead to ever widening federal power, and ever dwindling state’s rights. That, in no way whatsoever, is what the founders believed at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
There are also, Larry, big differences between Hamilton’s creation of a “national bank” and Obamacare’s mandate.
Article I, Section 8 gives congress the power to;
-To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
-To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Those are two very specific powers that the Constitution grants to Congress. Couple that with the “necessary and proper” clause, and what Hamilton did is arguably a Constitutional action, as he felt the creation of such a bank was necessary and proper in order for the federal government to carry out it’s duties, under those mentioned powers.
Obamacare is completely different. Yes, the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states, however, the regulation envisioned is not what we have today. The original intent was to regulate the sale or transportation of goods, not the goods themselves, nor the raw material gathering, particularly if it was intra-state. Nor does it allow for the forcing of commerce to individual consumers, so that it may then regulate it. That being the case, the “necessary and proper” clause certainly does not apply.
So, there are several problems evident that cannot be reconciled with the Constitution, regarding the individual mandate;
-One, Congress has no power granted by the Constitution, to regulate non-commerce, or, compel the engagement in commerce, to those who do not desire to engage in it.
-Two, Congress has no power to regulate commerce of individual citizens. The clause specifically lists three entities. Foreign nations, the indian tribes, and the states. It does not list “the people”, or “citizens”, or any like variant.
-Three, the clause is being misused as intended by original intent, as outlined by Madison in Federalist Papers no. 42 and 43. The intent was to prevent excessive, or destructive duties or tolls by one state, on the sale, or transportation, of goods from another state, either through, or to, a state. It was never intended to regulate a product from ‘cradle-to-grave’, so to speak, if that product either was sold in another state, or materials originated in another state, or in any way affected the commerce of another state. Madison speaks very clearly on this point.
To sum, your argument, that Congress has the power under the “necessary and proper” clause to mandate an individual purchase healthcare, is simply wrong, and is not the same as Hamilton’s creation of a “national bank”. Hamilton’s case rested on specifically delineated powers granted the federal government, and his view that the creation of such a bank was “necessary and proper” in order to carry out those powers. Obamacare’s mandate does not, and cannot, be reconciled with the “commerce clause”, for the reasons I mentioned above.
And the liberal/progressive viewpoint is shown very well by the last guy to speak in that clip.
“If congress decides to do something, then yes they have the power to do so.”
Think about that comment for a second. He has essentially stated that congress can do whatever they want. Stengel, in his Time piece on the Constitution, stated, in effect, the same thing by arguing that the Constitution neither limits the government, nor is it, in fact, anything other than a guideline for the government to go by.
Now think about all of the rights actually listed within the Constitution, from the Bill of Rights on. One guy, Stengel, basically states that government does not have to abide by those. The other guy’s statement says Congress can do whatever it wishes.
Now think about the outrage of those two guys against the government if Congress were to pass a law that limited free speech, that affected their ability to get on shows like this and speak their mind.
These guys are seriously mistaken in their beliefs about the Constitution, and in so doing, they attribute much more power to the federal government than the founding fathers ever had in mind.
Another point;
George Will asks a very good question to that panel, but I don’t believe they understand the point in asking such a question, particularly with that last guy’s answer.
“Can congress pass a law saying all obese people have to go to weight watchers?”
Good question, and the last guy basically answers yes. Ok then, from that answer, then congress has the power to pass laws, say, that force people to shop, or don’t shop, at Walmart. That all citizens must own at least one GM or Chrysler product. That all homeowners must purchase a solar panel installation or a windpower generator for their home. That all lighting in a home must be government appr………..oh wait, the government’s already done that. I think you get the point.
This court case could turn out to be the most important Supreme Court case ever in our history, as it doesn’t just deal with the field of healthcare, but rather, the power of the federal government over our lives. If left to stand, Obamacare can usher in a whole new range of government edicts and directives controlling your very life, 24/7/365/forever.
Those without objective reasoning amongst us do not, and will not, realize this, of course. They naively believe that the issue is solely oriented on healthcare, and the MSM and liberal/progressive politicians are feeding them this false narrative. They do not realize that sooner or later, if Obamacare, as written, is allowed to stand, that government will limit, or abolish, a right, freedom, or liberty, that they, themselves, hold near and dear to their hearts.
Thomas Jefferson, perhaps, said it best;
Love that guy. He’s no William F. Buckley but he does get the point across or he would if he could get them to close their pie-holes and listen instead of continually chirping liberal nonsense. But the question he posed is not far fetched at all especially now that recent studies have determined that sitting is just as bad for you as smoking.
So what can we expect our Federal Government to do to save us from ourselves yet again? In light of the new warning labels for tobacco products can we expect the Feds to place pictures of obese lard butts on every office chair? Will the purple cankles of a diabetes sufferer grace the upholstery of the foot rest of my next lay-z-boy? Perhaps the Commerce clause can be used to require all office workers to stand at least half the day? Who knows?
The last guy in the clip is Michael Eric Dyson. He’s a blowhard who loves using big words and constructing convoluted compound sentences, but who often makes no sense at all. I cringe whenever I see that he’s going to be participating in some panel discussion.
The first thing that I want to keep emphasizing is that ObamaCare is built on RomneyCare which was built on the “sensible GOP private sector alternative” to HillaryCare, advanced by GOP senators Dole and Grassley, and that the Dole/Grassley plan, like RomneyCare, was built on a mandate to purchase insurance.
I’d argue that Will’s analogy is fatally flawed. It sounds absurd on its face (that the government could mandate Americans to go to Weight Watchers). In the first place, it’s never been shown that going to Weight Watchers is an effective strategy for eliminating obesity and producing actual health benefits, whereas it’s been shown (e.g. Massachusetts) that mandates ARE effective in eliminating non-covered individuals who then burden the government when they are injured or become sick and require a government-sponsored bail out.
There are very good precedents for the government requiring consumers to purchase things. We can’t purchase a less expensive car, which doesn’t have airbags. We are required to purchase private parking spaces when government doesn’t allow us to park on taxpayer supported streets. We are required to pay for immunizations before the government will allow our children to go to school. We are required to pay a tire disposal fee when we buy new tires, even if we own private property on which we can dispose of our own tires. Same thing for computers and related products. We have to purchase a helmet if we wish to ride a motorcycle and we must purchase a helmet for our children if we want our children to ride a bicycle. We have to pay trash collection fees, whether or not we generate trash. We have to buy car insurance.
The health insurance mandate simply says that, if you want to utilize the American health care system, you have to buy health insurance. I’d be in favor of adding a clause to state that, if you don’t want to purchase health insurance, you can avoid it if you agree that all of your health care needs will be met outside of the American health care system, e.g. perhaps seeking health care in Cuba, following the model of Hugo Chavez.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I’m sorry Larry but I would argue that your rhetoric is “fatally flawed”. First off you are right in that we can’t buy a cheaper car because air bags ARE mandatory. If the FEDERAL government and the big three had not engaged in crony capitalism, designed to drive up the cost of domestically produced vehicles while limiting competition from foreign vehicles and interfered with our laissez-faire capitalist system then we COULD buy a less expensive vehicle.
Next you are only required to have your child immunized in order to put the little cherub in government school if you choose to home school you don’t have to do so, individual choice and liberty, also it is the State and not the Federal government that enacts such laws. That also applies to most of your other examples, scrap tire fees, bicycle and motorcycle helmets laws are established by the State. Trash and parking fees are enacted by municipal governments, not the State, and most definitely not the Feds.
Now I have no problem with the people of Massachusetts enacting a health plan containing an individual mandate that is why we have a 9th and 10th Amendments because there are issues best decided locally. But the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to impose their will on us in this manner!
P.S. you don’t have to have car insurance if you live in New Hampshire, at least as of last year you didn’t, I don’t know about now. A mere three or four years ago there were 5 States that also allowed you to self insure but alas that has changed.
@poppa: Here’s another example at the Federal level: The government requiring the purchase of more expensive fuels, to meet federally mandated standards for a percentage of fuel being formulated from renewable sources. This was passed by a GOP controlled Congress and signed into law by a GOP President.
http://205.254.135.24/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ethanol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
The point is that the government can and does have the legal right to compel purchases of commodities and instruments which relate to interstate commerce. There are existing examples. The above are just some from the top of my head. I’m sure that there are others.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Not exactly, Larry. And it doesn’t go for any of your other examples, either. In your examples, the government doesn’t compel you to engage in commerce. It merely regulates what you can purchase if you so decide to engage in that commerce. That is the major difference between Obamacare, and the examples you gave, hence, my statement that this court case could be the harbinger of even more power grabs by the federal government, compelling people to engage in commerce that they otherwise might not engage in. If you don’t see the difference, then it that fact explains quite clearly to others why you seem to support Obamacare.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
The difference is that Obamacare regulates inactivity. You can choose not to buy fuel. You cannot choose not to be enslaved by Obamacare. And if Congress can regulate inactivity, it can force democrats to buy Sarah Palin’s book.
Liberal commentators refuse to follow the logic and honestly answer George Will. They all understand that, to their way of thinking, Obamacare means that Congress can tell us to do virtually anything, because nearly everything is related to healthcare.
Don’t worry Mister Blue, we’ll take good care of you.
Just think of it as sense and not surrender.
But never think again, that you can ever think again.
Or you’ll get something you’ll remember.
What will it take to whip you into line?
A broken heart?
A broken head?
It can be arranged.
It can be arranged.
From Tom Paxton’s Mr. Blue.
I can’t find Paxton’s version of this song on YouTube (which is rather upbeat and cheery); but here is Clear Light’s version from the 60’s. Mr. Blue
@ johngalt
Exactly!
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: The Energy Policy Act of 2005! Thank you for that example Larry, I couldn’t have chosen a finer example of crony capitalism myself. When BIG government and BIG business collude together to drive up the prices on commodities, benefit a few large corporations at the expense of their smaller competitors and expand the power of government, screw the people legislation like this is always the result. I remember the libs blowing a gasket when this passed and now you are using it as justification for the further erosion of personal liberties, classic.
Dubya’s 2005 energy act was modified by PrezBO in 2009 by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act these “laws” authorized loan guarantees to many corporations who were to look into “innovative technologies that avoid greenhouse gases” (you know what that means? Taxpayers are on the hook for all their bills once they default on their loans!) and virtually eliminated the tried and true coal fired power plant.
You know Larry crony capitalism is just as harmful when a democrat practices it, as when a repub does it. And doesn’t make it right or just just because it’s been done before.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
As an addition to my comment in #7, George Will’s question is an excellent analogy to Obamacare’s mandate, in that it is something that people now choose to engage in, going to WW to lose weight compared to choosing to purchase healthcare insurance. It is the freedom to choose to engage in such commerce.
J.G. Would certainly agree Congress does not have the right to require W.W. attendance.
Would hope incentives to maintain a healthy weight and reasonably healthy life style,exercise,non smoking can be incorporated into individuals cost for coverage.
Bottom line I don’t think a person who takes reasonable care of himself should be paying for the care of those who through gluttony,adversion to exercise,smoking find themseves in poor health.SURPRISE
Semper Fi George Will one of America’s greatest baseball fans
@rich wheeler:
And if that was done solely by the health insurance company, which, as it turns out, was exactly what my own was doing prior to Obamacare, then that is perfectly acceptable. The government requiring healthcare companies to do so is not.
My point to Larry still stands. Government regulation forcing one to engage in commerce is most definitely unConstitutional. Government regulation forcing a person who decides to engage in commerce, to engage in that commerce a certain way, is debatable, but not what the issue of Obamacare’s mandate is all about.
@johngalt,Poppa, Aqua,Gary, and others: Can you at least acknowledge that the “mandate” is not a nefarious socialistic ploy dreamed up and foisted on America by Obama? This was a Republican idea, initially conceived of by Republicans and actually implemented by the person who is currently the front-runner for the 2012 GOP nomination. If we can begin at that point, then perhaps we can discuss the hair-splitting nature of the arguments, themselves, (currently being tossed about) without partisan rancor.
It seems that the majority of you guys are at least accepting (if not being happy about it) of the idea that the government does have the power under the constitution to regulate interstate commercial activity, with the definition of interstate commercial activity being very broad, as codified by Supreme Court decisions.
The argument being used is that an insurance mandate regulates inactivity. The biofuel mandate is (grudgingly) accepted, because there’s supposed to be a free will choice to buy fuel. Likewise, there’s a free will choice to buy an automobile; so that if a person has a philosophical problem with spending hundreds of dollars more to purchase something he doesn’t want (e.g. an airbag), then he can simply make the choice not to buy a car.
I consider this to be a hair splitting argument, for a couple of reasons. In the first place, 99% of Americans will need automobile transportation and there is no practical way to avoid purchasing gasoline containing renewable fuels or riding in cars without air bags.
Let’s look at health insurance. 99% of Americans will need health care or will have a family member, for whom they are responsible, who needs health care. The difference between purchasing an unwanted air bag or unwanted fuel additives, compared to purchasing unwanted health insurance is a legalistic, hair-splitting argument, which has nothing at all to do with real differences in personal liberty, in the two situations. It’s an argument which wouldn’t be made by anyone, save for the ultra-libertarian fringe, had the proposal been made by Republicans, as an alternative to Medicare for all. It’s an argument which wouldn’t be made, were a Republican to suggest replacing Medicare with mandatory private insurance, to be pre-paid during the working years.
It’s an argument which is simply being made because conservatives don’t like Obama and don’t like anything which Democrats do, even when what it is that Democrats are doing is simply stealing an old Republican idea.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry Exactly If Obama likes it Conservs are against it. Politics as usual.
It’s so tiresome to hear people trying to excuse national level mandates based on the existence of state level mandates.
The States have the power and authority to do things under their individual constitutions that the Fed Gov’t doesn’t have the power and authority to do under the limitations of the US Constitution.
It’s simple really.
See the 10th Amendment for clarification:
Furthermore, having seen the remarkable failure that has occurred in MA, anyone with half the brains of a goose would realize that the magnification of those ideas to a nationwide level is a really, really bad idea.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Whether I acknowledge that or not makes no difference. I do not, and never have, argued that the mandate is a “socialistic ploy” dreamed up and foisted on America by Obama. I have, however, argued, many times, that it runs completely counter to the limitations placed upon the federal government by the Constitution. And, I might add, I would hope that I would have been against this during Clinton’s terms, even if it was proposed and passed by Republicans. I cannot, however, definitively state that I would have, for, that was well over a decade ago and I have learned much more about the Constitution, and the original intents of the founding fathers since that time.
You assume too much, Larry. As my above paragraph stated, I have learned quite a bit regarding the Constitution, and I now realize that what the liberal/progressives claim about the ‘Commerce clause’ is, in fact, not what it was meant to be. I’ve also learned enough about relevant Supreme Court decisions, particularly those since the late 30’s, when FDR “packed” the court, to realize that the commerce clause itself was expanded more by judicial activism than by anything else. And, as a non-believer in ‘court precedent’, I believe that those Supreme Court decisions are irrelevant, if one considers that a different court can overrule a previous one.
Not exactly, Larry. I am quite happy with my 86′ Chevy pickup, even if it gets less mileage than a newer vehicle. I have the option, if I so choose, to purchase, and continue purchasing, used vehicles old enough that I don’t have all of that stuff if I do not want it. The gas issue is one you are semi-correct on. However, I do have the choice, still, of voting in representatives, senators, and a President, who would change those requirements, however unlikely that may be. I also have the option, if I so choose, to purchase an older diesel vehicle an make my own diesel fuel using all manner of feedstock to do so.
And again, that isn’t the point, Larry. I have, at this moment in time, the freedom to take the money I spend on health insurance, place it within an interest bearing account somewhere, to use for my healthcare, or my family’s healthcare, if I feel the health insurance company, or industry, is not doing me justice. Others, who have much higher incomes than I do, have even greater ability to pay for their own. Under full implementation of Obamacare, I lose that freedom, even if I never use it. The point is, that I have that freedom now, and under Obamacare I don’t.
You are arguing as if healthcare and healthcare insurance are one and the same. They are not. The insurance is merely a different method of paying for healthcare, and Obamacare takes away all other methods of paying for it, or it imposes penalties if you decide to pay for your healthcare with something other than healthcare insurance.
You cannot definitively state that, Larry. To do so, you would need a time machine and the ability to alter history, so that your Dole/Grassley example passes, in order to find out exactly what conservatives would say about it. As I said, I’d hope that I would be against it even then, but knowing how young, and ignorant, I was at the time, I cannot guarantee that. I can say, however, that knowing what I know now, regarding the Constitution, that I would have been against it no matter who was President, or who initiated the bill, or who was in the majority in Congress. It has nothing to do with Obama. It has everything to do with being in opposition to the Constitution, and the original intent of the commerce clause.
@Aye:
Indeed, Aye, the 10th Amendment gives the States, and the people, broad police powers. It is then up to the individual states themselves as to whether or not to engage in such legislative acts, and only then if it doesn’t encroach upon federal powers granted by the Constitution, or infringe upon individual rights, as delineated by the Constitution, and if it can be reconciled with the particular state’s Constitution.
Auto manufacturers are threatening to void engine warranties if certain blends are put into the gas tanks.
So, the gov’t might ”mandate” one thing only to be a cause for great fights in the actual carrying out of the mandate.
And while a presidential go-around of the legislative process might lead to – say, the EPA trying to mandate expensive green policies – the Congress can de-fund or block such.
See: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/169787-house-gop-spending-bill-would-block-epa-climate-rules-for-one-year
As with any philosophy, one of the best tests is to ask: what if it applied to EVERYTHING?
Well, George Will started to do just that with his Weight Watchers’ mandate question.
Does it make sense or not?
What about forcing vegetables on everyone everyday?
In Europe where assisted suicide is legal in a few places it only took 6 years before the move to make sure (by law!) the suicide left all the organs in good enough shape to be harvested!
The studies of who refuses to buy health insurance show that most of the non-compliers are healthy males, single and healthy young couples.
There are also a few who have religious beliefs against owning insurance (Muslims) or seeing doctors (Christian Scientists and a few others).
Will individual conscience have to bend, too?
@John(#19): This was a very well-reasoned, logical presentation of arguments.
As purely a thought exercise, I wouldn’t stridently disagree, but health care is a vexing, practical, real world problem, for which no one, anywhere in the world, has come up with an ideal solution to problems which refuse to go away.
To take on only one of these problems, in direct response to #19:
When people exercise their constitutional right not to purchase health insurance and then get cancer or diabetic ketoacidosis or have a heart attack or get hit by a bus or pick up MRSA in the health club, they still seek medical care — which is then paid for by other people, who did not exercise their constitutional right not to buy health insurance.
If you ever get to the point where you can no longer buy vehicles which don’t have air bags, then that’s solely your problem and not anyone else’s.
@Aye: MA health care has hardly been a “remarkable failure.”
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&CONTENTID=35254&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Nan G:
I didn’t even touch on that, but that is an excellent point Nan.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
In order to assume that, one has to assume that people, in general, do not pay their health care bills, or do not pay any of their bills. That is an assumption that takes quite a leap to accept, Larry. For example, at this current time I have healthcare bills from a back injury, and the medical tests taken to diagnose the exact problem. My insurance did not pay for everything, which leaves me to pay the rest, which I am, even If I am not paying it all off at once(CatScans are quite expensive, as I’m sure you know). I am not leaving my bill for anyone else to pick up the tab, however, your statement above assumes that that is exactly what is happening. And I am not alone in this, either.
Yes, the health care issue is a big deal, and no one believes that simply wishing it away will make it non-existent. But this is the same with many other issues as well. The question is; Are we going to go to a system of solving all of our problems and issues by acting in opposition to the Constitution? Because, if you do, then you have rendered it ineffective, and much less than a supreme law of the land. You have given the nation ‘rule by the whim of men’, rather than a nation of law, with rule by law.
And that gets back to George Will’s question, and Michael Dyson’s answer. You may ‘cringe’ and believe he makes no sense at all, however, your arguments are just as crazy as his answer. Whether or not something is being done doesn’t matter in the slightest. The only question is if it can be reconciled with the limitations on power the Constitution places on the federal government.
That will be a sad day. And not because of the airbags.
@John:
We still have to continue the prior discussion on original intent, Constitution-wise.
The above argument, in addition, is a bit of a straw man. I never advocated solving every little problem with a Constitutionally-challenged government program. But health care is 17% of the economy, on a trajectory to increase to 33% of the economy. If it’s true that the debt problem (fueled by health care costs, 50% of which are currently paid for through various government programs) is really a crisis, for which private sector market economics has no answer, then it makes as much sense for the government to create an “unconstitutional” national health care program as it made for the government to create an “unconstitutional” national bank, in a time of similar crisis, e.g.
I think that the parallels are striking. Among other things, it shows that the framers of the Constitution had the same sorts of disagreements as you and I are having today. For purposes of this thought experiment, you are James Madison. I’m Alexander Hamilton. George Washington is the pragmatist. He’s the one that we should look to for guidance, in matters such as this.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@ Larry
Oh, I believe it is a nefarious socialistic ploy; maybe not dreamed up by Obama, but definitely foisted on America by Obama. Dole, Grassley, Romney, and any other republican you want to name may have had the idea first, but Obama made it federal, and thus foisted on America.
We have 50 states, (57 if you ask Obama). We should have 50 different experiments and see which one works best. That’s the way it is supposed to work. Each state tries to implement their own solutions to problems they have. Solutions that work are imitated and built on. National healthcare will not work. And if you guys think it is such a great solution, why aren’t you writing letters and angry editorials to the administration demanding all waivers be rescinded?
Larry If you’re Hamilton be thankful J.G. isn’t Aaron Burr.
@rich: lol
#26:
Actually, the U.S. does consist of 57 distinct areas. (A fact that I only bring up to annoy people. For all I know, Obama was thinking about varieties of catsup.)
I would submit that Mata is the George Washington of this particular discussion topic.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
It’s quite funny that you allude to me as being in the role of James Madison, Larry, as he discussed in detail the “necessary and proper” clause, the intent, and why it was written the way that it was. He did so in Federalist Paper, no. 44.
As it is, coupled with the “commerce clause” of which he also spoke at length about, in Federalist Paper no. 42 and 43, the federal government still does not have the power to force, or compel, the people to engage in any particular commerce. Your example might have been closer related to the issue of Obamacare’s mandate, had the Constitution delineated a power to Congress over health care. Your mistake is that you use the commerce clause incorrectly, and in conflict to what Madison wrote about it, to assume powers for congress over our healthcare, and then you double down on that by insisting the “necessary and proper” clause gives Congress the power to make such as law as the O-care mandate.
The gift that is the Federalist Papers provides us with insight as to the intent and meaning of the various clauses and phrases contained within the Constitution. The fact that liberals and progressives purposely avoid these writings in any attempt at defense of their actions accused of being unConstitutional should tell you quite a bit about their actions. Namely, that they have little to no ground to stand upon.
I recommend a quick reading of Federalist Papers, no. 42,43,44 in order to better educate yourself on the intent of those two clauses contained within the Constitution, and their applicability to both your example of a National Bank, and Obamacare.
My memory of Obama’s 57 state gaff is, he was actually saying that there are 60 states in all.
@John: Hamilton wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist papers, and he clearly disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution as a rigid blueprint to be narrowly interpreted and strictly adhered to, in perpetuity.
The Constitution was written by individuals with conflicting individual opinions, as were the Federalist papers. Madison himself wrote that the Constitution itself was the authoritative blueprint for governance, and not the Federalist Papers. You focus on Madison’s personal interpretation of “necessary and proper,” with which Hamilton doesn’t agree — with Hamilton offering the doctrine of “implied powers.”
If it (meaning Constitutional interpretation) were as simple and straightforward as you (John) imply, then there would be no constitutional disputes. You focus entirely on the views of a politician who shares your views (Madison) and ignore the contrarian views of a politician with whom you disagree (Hamilton). But, you see, it wasn’t Obama and the Democrats who invented the idea of the Constitution as a living document, subject to nuanced interpretation, and granting “implied powers” to Congress. These were views advocated by Hamilton, who was — no less than Madison — an architect of the Constitution.
According to Hamilton,
This is not an issue that you and I can ever settle between ourselves, because it is an issue which couldn’t be settled even by our great national Founders among themselves. But we can, at least, acknowledge the legitimacy of opposing points of view as being rationally held and based on precedents dating to our national origins.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
And I never thought that it was, Larry. The number of writings of Hamilton hardly matter, as I point out the writings of the Federalist Papers, by all three authors, depending on who has written about what, so as to explain the intent of the certain clauses and phrases, as they were written at the time. And I wouldn’t say that Hamilton’s writings, in the Federalist Papers clearly disagree with me, or even disagree at all, depending on the particular aspect of the Constitution being discussed.
It seems to me that the difference in opinion between us is that I view those clauses and phrases with a narrow viewpoint, based on an allusion to the Constitution as a severe limitation of federal government power. And you view it with a wide view, attempting to encompass as wide a latitude as possible in order to justify the federal government increasing it’s power to deal with today’s issues.
Your arguments alluding to the Constitution as a “living document” lead to ever widening federal power, and ever dwindling state’s rights. That, in no way whatsoever, is what the founders believed at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: But Larry, everybody hated Hamilton.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
There are also, Larry, big differences between Hamilton’s creation of a “national bank” and Obamacare’s mandate.
Article I, Section 8 gives congress the power to;
Those are two very specific powers that the Constitution grants to Congress. Couple that with the “necessary and proper” clause, and what Hamilton did is arguably a Constitutional action, as he felt the creation of such a bank was necessary and proper in order for the federal government to carry out it’s duties, under those mentioned powers.
Obamacare is completely different. Yes, the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states, however, the regulation envisioned is not what we have today. The original intent was to regulate the sale or transportation of goods, not the goods themselves, nor the raw material gathering, particularly if it was intra-state. Nor does it allow for the forcing of commerce to individual consumers, so that it may then regulate it. That being the case, the “necessary and proper” clause certainly does not apply.
So, there are several problems evident that cannot be reconciled with the Constitution, regarding the individual mandate;
-One, Congress has no power granted by the Constitution, to regulate non-commerce, or, compel the engagement in commerce, to those who do not desire to engage in it.
-Two, Congress has no power to regulate commerce of individual citizens. The clause specifically lists three entities. Foreign nations, the indian tribes, and the states. It does not list “the people”, or “citizens”, or any like variant.
-Three, the clause is being misused as intended by original intent, as outlined by Madison in Federalist Papers no. 42 and 43. The intent was to prevent excessive, or destructive duties or tolls by one state, on the sale, or transportation, of goods from another state, either through, or to, a state. It was never intended to regulate a product from ‘cradle-to-grave’, so to speak, if that product either was sold in another state, or materials originated in another state, or in any way affected the commerce of another state. Madison speaks very clearly on this point.
To sum, your argument, that Congress has the power under the “necessary and proper” clause to mandate an individual purchase healthcare, is simply wrong, and is not the same as Hamilton’s creation of a “national bank”. Hamilton’s case rested on specifically delineated powers granted the federal government, and his view that the creation of such a bank was “necessary and proper” in order to carry out those powers. Obamacare’s mandate does not, and cannot, be reconciled with the “commerce clause”, for the reasons I mentioned above.