Congress doesn't seem to like the constitution

lordbt · #11 28th October 2009, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by BobW188

It is arguable that requiring universal coverage would "promote the general welfare;" and if so Congress could properly enact it based on its power to enact laws "necessary and proper." As has been noted above, congressional power to regulate interstate commerce could provide additional Constitutional justification.

But if you use that standard as a measure of what congress can legally do, what is it that congress may not legally do? That strikes me as a blank check. Someone could argue that nationalizing certain businesses like energy producers is necessary to "promote the general welfare." The point is, once you give the state this kind of power, how do you stop them?

eldermike · #12 28th October 2009, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by BobW188

It is arguable that requiring universal coverage would "promote the general welfare;" and if so Congress could properly enact it based on its power to enact laws "necessary and proper." As has been noted above, congressional power to regulate interstate commerce could provide additional Constitutional justification.

Constitutionality would be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court which, for better or worse, does not give advisory opinions.

It was my impression that reporters on beats like the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court usually brought with them some knowledge of how government works. One suspects our Inquiring Reporter was well aware of the above provisions of the Constitution, and simply couldn't pass up the chance to ask a loaded question. Speaker Pelosi's answer might have been better, I suppose, but it was hardly inappropriate.

The answer was: "are you serious"......to me that's an answer much like: how did this reporter get in here.

Also I beleive the language says promote the general welfare, not be the general welfare. As already said, the line has already been crossed we are on uncharted ground already. What comes next?

lordbt · #13 28th October 2009, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by eldermike

The answer was: "are you serious"......to me that's an answer much like: how did this reporter get in here.

What Pelosi's response reveals is how little consideration she gives to the Constitution. She has already concluded that the Constitution gives her the power to do anything she wants. Since she can regulate interstate commerce, she can force under penalty of law, people to pay for something they dont want. One of the plans had penalties of up to a year in prison and $25,000 fines for people who refuse to buy health insurance. That this sort of thing is being contemplated in the US is unbelievable.

ACougar · #14 28th October 2009, 10:25 AM

That issue was addressed during the civil war, the side that struggled against Federal power lost. There is a reason it is refered to by many as the "War of State Rights." The answer is you elect representatives who represent your views.

Originally Posted by lordbt

But if you use that standard as a measure of what congress can legally do, what is it that congress may not legally do? That strikes me as a blank check. Someone could argue that nationalizing certain businesses like energy producers is necessary to "promote the general welfare." The point is, once you give the state this kind of power, how do you stop them?

eldermike · #15 28th October 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by ACougar

That issue was addressed during the civil war, the side that struggled against Federal power lost. There is a reason it is refered to by many as the "War of State Rights." The answer is you elect representatives who represent your views.

I agree, the last battle was lost..

Gishin · #16 28th October 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by eldermike

I agree, the last battle was lost..

You want a repeat of the most bloody time in American history?

lordbt · #17 28th October 2009, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by ACougar

That issue was addressed during the civil war, the side that struggled against Federal power lost. There is a reason it is refered to by many as the "War of State Rights." The answer is you elect representatives who represent your views.

And those representatives have no limits on their power? Not sure why you would advocate the ability of the majority to tyrannize the minority. Does the concept of individual rights mean nothing to you?

Billnew · #18 28th October 2009, 11:34 AM

This seems to belong in Politics.

I believe even the Congress that put the limits on goverment still didn't want to be restricted by it.
The serpants* excuse: "ssSurely, the consstitution doessn't mean to resstrict thisss law. It isss well intended, and for the good of the people."
Even the most offensive laws in the world, were passed
"for the good of the people". Just as in some countries, people were killed for the good of the people, Hitler killed the Jews, for the good of the people.
We here a more specific selling point now adays:
"Do it for the children..." (for the good of the younger people.)

This is why Congress has not been so one sided in a long time. Because ultimate power will corrupt ultimately.

But I believe the more conservative Democrats will keep the power in check.

Pelosi: "Are you kidding?"
seems to clearly say the serpants* excuse.

*the serpant in the garden of Eden

jayem · #19 28th October 2009, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by lordbt

But if you use that standard as a measure of what congress can legally do, what is it that congress may not legally do? That strikes me as a blank check. Someone could argue that nationalizing certain businesses like energy producers is necessary to "promote the general welfare." The point is, once you give the state this kind of power, how do you stop them?

There has always been a strain of thought, going back to Hamilton, that the Congress has broad powers under the general welfare clause. And since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation. So we have a federal government very involved in regulating the economy, along with tax supported social welfare programs, like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. At this point, I think the most secure way to Constitutionally limit this power would be an amendment. It would have to be worded somewhow to clearly and explicity limit Congressional authority under the commerce and general welfare clauses. And it would be extremely difficult to pass. Although, amendments have been passed before from grass-roots efforts. Prohibition and women's suffrage are examples. So it's not impossible,

eldermike · #20 28th October 2009, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Gishin

You want a repeat of the most bloody time in American history?

I never said I did. I am sure that most sane people would want to prevent it. Perhaps that's what the tea party people are trying to do?