Why you should be happy George W. Bush is our President

[TheScout 10]

Yeah because liberals love the Constitution so much. I missed where it mentioned how the federal government had anything to do with health care or education.

[Beavah 205]

LOL. Yah, the Harding comparison is pretty apt. Combinin' the traits of Harding and Hoover might be about right, which probably puts him just a bit shy of Buchanan's league.

 

So far I'm quite pleased that Obama is turnin' out to be a very pragmatic centrist. Saw today he effectively is shelving the goofy no-secret-ballot union organizing legislation for the foreseeable future, and he's even stepped up to at least indicate a willingness to tackle entitlement programs. Now wouldn't that be an only-Nixon-can-go-to-China moment, eh? Only a Democrat and our first black president can potentially rein in Medicare. His problem is goin' to be the partisan dems in congress.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle 753]

If the people WANT the federal government to have something to do with health care or education, does the constitution prohibit this?

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Preamble: "...promote the general welfare..." Welfare at the time meaning health and well being. Same word used again in Article I, section 8.

 

BTW: I think Bush even failed as a conservative. A fiscal conservative would never have cut taxes without cuts in spending.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

To be clear, my last post was addressing post by TheScout. Packsaddle, I agree with you.

[packsaddle 753]

Me too, Hal, I was replying to TheScout as well.

Beavah, I am almost having to pinch myself, but he's not actually IN office yet. I sure hope you're right though. BTW, where have you been lately. Trying to stay warm? Around here, to keep warm we just go down to the local Assemblies church and burn a few heretics.

[TheScout 10]

"If the people WANT the federal government to have something to do with health care or education, does the constitution prohibit this?"

 

Recall the 10th Amendment says:

 

"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."

 

Since health care and education are not mentioned in the Constitution it seems a stretch to say such powers were delegated to the federal government. Under that logic almost anything could be stretched. What if the "people" want the federal government to torture prisoners, or anything else for that matter.

 

It is also apt to mention that the federal government had virtually no role in health care and education for the first at least century of the American republic. Hence it was clearly not the intent of the writers of the Constitution, nor the people who voted to ratify it that they should have such powers.

 

If we wanted the federal government to take control of education and health care. We can pass a constitutional amendment to CLEARLY give them the power to do so.

 

 

"Preamble: "...promote the general welfare..." Welfare at the time meaning health and well being. Same word used again in Article I, section 8."

 

The Preamble does not create any powers. It is merely an introduction through which can influence how other parts may be interpreted.

 

From Section 8 you conveniently left out most of the clause you quoted. In total it says:

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

 

It says Congress may raise taxes, etc. for the general welfare. It does not say they may meddle with education for the general welfare.

 

You may note that Section 8 gives a list of 17 powers that the federal government has. Even the "elastic clause." Only gives Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the FOREGOING Powers" (emphasis added).

 

This is not an issue whether federal control of health care and education is a good or bad thing, but if it is constitutional.

 

imply because you have a problem that needs addressing, its not necessarily the case that Federal legislation is the best way to address it...The constitutional limitation doesnt turn on whether its a good idea. There is not a good idea clause in the Constitution. It can be a bad idea, but certainly still satisfy the constitutional requirements. -John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

So do you have any cites of successful court cases against federal involvement in health care or education, on the basis that the federal government lacks the power to do so?

[Hal_Crawford 15]

TheScout:

 

So you oppose:

No Child Left Behind?

Medicare (including prescription benefits instituted by Bush)?

 

I'm guessing you also agree that the federal government can't overrule state legislatures on such issues as medical marijuana? I suppose you would also oppose any federal law limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman? I'm sure that if congress had passed that law that Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas would have voted it down.

 

Or do these strict constructionist constraints apply when the issues are liberal "good ideas" rather than conservative ones.

 

No matter, as I write the Bush appointees throughout our nation's capital are grabbing their personal belongings, turning out their office lights and heading to the elevators one last time. The last business day of the Bush administration has drawn to a close and they can move on to their new lives as lobbyists and consultants. The circle of life is complete.

 

Hal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kahuna 172]

--So do you have any cites of successful court cases against federal involvement in health care or education, on the basis that the federal government lacks the power to do so?--

 

Of course not, Merlyn, there was no need for court cases on such an obvious point until the federal courts were filled up with activist liberal judges who ignore the Constitution and just act on their "feelings".

 

Our Constitution created a government of specified powers. Maybe you can find where it says "A Right to Health Care," but I can't.

[TheScout 10]

No. But the federal government has been barred from doing other things that it does not have the power to do under the Constitution. Recall that for the vast majority of of American history the federal governement did not even try to interfere with the State's powers over education and health care so there was no need to strike down such legislation.

 

I am sure if the federal government tried to take control of education or health care like they do today at any time during the first century and a half of the republic they would have got mercilessly struck down.

 

However, once again I would contend that any court is not the sole judge of the constitution but we have been through that before . . .

[Beavah 205]

Yah, the feds only monkey with education to the extent they fund it, eh? Any state can "opt out" of No Child Left Behind and all the other federal education regulations so long as they turn down federal money for schools. Your complaint isn't with da feds, TheScout. It's with the state legislatures that have no gumption or courage.

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

TheScout writes:

No. But the federal government has been barred from doing other things that it does not have the power to do under the Constitution.

 

Well, yes. But it hasn't been barred from health care & education. So if the federal government decides to e.g. spend money on health care, it looks like they will.

 

Given your earlier comments on courts vs. governmental power, I would think that your view would be that even if the supreme court ruled against federal health care spending, the government could ignore the ruling anyway. Last time your description of court opinions seemed to be about the same level as a movie review -- the government can pay attention to it, or not.

 

However, once again I would contend that any court is not the sole judge of the constitution but we have been through that before . . .

 

Exactly. So even if the supreme court stated unequivocally that the federal government does not have the power to create a federal health care program, the government could ignore that ruling and do it anyway, right?

[TheScout 10]

You are smart enough to know that the spending power is not unlimited. The federal government can not spend for purposes that are unconstitutional, whether a court says so or not.

 

I agree that the other branches could "ignore" a SCOTUS decision if it is not in keeping with the Constitution. There are three branches to the federal government as well as the states. They all have the duty to interpret the Constitution in undertaking their roles.

[TheScout 10]

Beavah, astute point.

 

However, the federal government would continue to take tax money from any state that opted out. This would force the state to go in the "negative" by many millions of dollars. It would be irresponsible for a state legislature to do so. They are almost being coerced.

 

The problem is still the federal government using its spending power to effect unconstitutional ends. The spending power is clearly not unlimited or the federal government would have the power to do anything.