Is any social legislation constitutional?

btw, here is the 10th amendment

"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."

And yet more random stuff:

"As of August 2009, 37 states have introduced resolutions in support of "state sovereignty" under the 10th Amendment. In seven states the resolutions passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee).
Further, two states (Montana and Tennessee) have passed specific legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state"

Hey i love Judge Nappy has a great point. But he's a little late if he wants the government to restrict itself to constitutional powers. </understatement>

How did we get social security, medicare, or medicaid? Should we repeal them?

>> ^KnivesOut:
How did we get social security, medicare, or medicaid? Should we repeal them?


Yes.

The simple answer is yes, but and additional answer (beyond the law of it) lays in the reasons they were needed in the first place. The only reason they existed was because of the Great Depression, it was one of the spending programs enacted by the government to try and enable Keynesian full employment (if the private sector can't employ everyone, then it is up to the government to do so). While the effects of this are disputed, the depression has long been over. Like all social programs though, once started it is impossible to stop, even if it has outlived what it was designed to do. This isn't normally a problem in the private sector, when people don't want sprokets (or Fords), they don't buy them. When a government program has outlived its intended purpose when do they ever go away? Example, since 1898, the US government has collected a 3 percent tax on all long distance phone calls to fund the Spanish-American War. The tax ended on June 30, 2006.

I'd like to get a bit more discussion going on this issue... *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by EndAll.

To be fair, some have argued health care could be allowed under "the general welfare" of the Preamble. Whether that is their intention of "welfare" or not is incidental, I believe, because the 10th Amendment indicates the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are "reserved to the States."

The constitution was written as a guideline of how things should be ran (in the most general sense). You can't expect people from 1787 to understand or predict how things going to be in the present day, and write something that will stand the test of over 220 years. Things change. And ammendments are proof of that. Saying that providing health care is not constitutional is a rediculous arguing point in my opinion. Whats so wrong about the government trying to provide for its people?

>> ^reiwan:
The constitution was written as a guideline of how things should be ran (in the most general sense).


Yes, because the writ of law is supposed to be vague and general, especially when it pertains to the governance of an entire nation.

Face it..

The balance of powers and the Constitution are just ideas.


The road to hell is paved on good intentions.

Okay, you win Fox News. See you later America, once you're bankrupt and in the waning days of your superpower status. Better start learning chinese! seriously, listen to these guys, and one day we all will be communist (chinese).

>> ^blankfist:
To be fair, some have argued health care could be allowed under "the general welfare" of the Preamble.


I think "general welfare" is a very good argument in this case. Perhaps not so much because of our situation today, but because of where we're heading.

For better or for worse, we are beginning the transition to an automated society. Advances in software have allowed individuals to accomplish tasks that would have taken a team of people 10 years ago and this will only continue (or increase). When uncertainty becomes a large part of the economy (recessions, etc) then companies start looking for ways to cut costs. Why pay more for extra workers you no longer need?

It isn't a huge issue today, but it will be much more obvious in 20 years or so. Technology isn't going away, and the population isn't decreasing anytime soon. As companies find ways to automate many of their activities for less cost, the job pool shrinks. Businesses will always need to hire people, but they won't need as many of them so it becomes a little harder to find employment. As more people end up jobless their lack of medical coverage definitely becomes a "general welfare" issue, strengthening the argument for a federal program.


I don't see this as a question of whether or not health care and basic necessities should be provided... it's a question of how to do it effectively and least expensively. Will businesses cover the unemployed? Can a government system be effective? How are taxes handled with a smaller employment base?

I don't think the business-centric model is sustainable because it assumes there are enough jobs for everyone to participate. Many people like the Darwinian aspect, but that doesn't take into account the political unrest that can appear if enough people are jobless and lack outside support. Some would say "that's their problem, let them fix it", but the free market doesn't function as well in times of political turmoil.


Having said that, deficit spending is not sustainable either. That is the most difficult portion of this issue. I do not share the opinion that government can not be efficient, but I do agree that efficiency is not its default state (poor design mainly). I couldn't tell you which options will lead to the best result, but I am strongly convinced that any plan which doesn't provide for the unemployed will ultimately fail.

Most republicans were against medicare as well. Wouldn't they have tried the same legal argument back then if they had a leg to stand on?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^reiwan:
The constitution was written as a guideline of how things should be ran (in the most general sense).

Yes, because the writ of law is supposed to be vague and general, especially when it pertains to the governance of an entire nation.



I wasnt stating that the constitution itself was written in general terms. I was merely just saying (generally) what the constitution is. With the way you twisted that around, you should work for fox news =P

>> ^Psychologic:


Automation will create jobs as well. The big fear back in the 80s was the robots replacing factory workers on assembly lines. I say good. I've worked an assembly line, and it's no fucking picnic. It's monotonous and I don't believe any man should suffer that fate. But, that's just a personal opinion, and in no way am I trying to take a political stance for or against assembly lines.

The robotics industry still needs employees. Sure, the factory worker lost his job, but a technician gained a job to fix the robot, and the software engineers needed to program these automations. It's a tradeoff. The factory becomes more efficient, and higher paying jobs are created where skilled human labor is needed. I do feel bad for those uneducated workers with little to no skills, but progress in the marketplace doesn't sit idly worrying about the sum of all its parts.

I do fairly well programming Flash sites and games. You think that will be a career I could hang my hat on for the rest of my life? Hell no. At some point I will need to progress and try to find another way to make a living. It wouldn't be fair to anyone if Flash programmers unionized and demanded tech benchmarks that prohibited the tech industry from advancing beyond Flash 8 AS2 (an older benchmark for Flash programmers) so to best make the market fair and to ensure the majority of programmers keep their jobs. I know this isn't exactly what you were talking about, but I wanted to go off on a tangent. Sue me.

I think it becomes everyone's responsibility in life to pick yourself up by your bootstraps, if you pardon my cliche - including the purchasing of health care. And, as I do agree we need health care reform, I don't believe government involvement is the system we need. I hate the current corporate system, and I'd love to see corporations die on their knees as much as the next man, but not by way of the government gun.

A new system is necessary. I just don't know what that system could be. I'd like to start with the government not recognizing corporations, therefore they'd lose their teeth, and people could use the courts to regulate a market instead of relying on the bureaucratic government morass that's terribly ineffectual and completely unfair. Point in case, Smithfield's pork industry in NC is ruining the land and getting the loc
als sick. Their hands are tied from suing Smithfield's unless they want to go way of Class Action, which is a joke. The EPA stepped up to correct the injustice and fined Smithfield's less than 1% of their yearly sales. The EPA in turn gave Smithfield's an award for environmentalism!

These government is part of the problem. We don't want them further ruining something that's already broken thanks to their collusion. We want them out. And, we want to use the court system to keep these corporations honest, which would lead to less denials of claims if there wasn't such thing as a goddamn insurance commission to protect them.

Umm it's like the first thing? Does everyone get distracted by the laundry list of things he lists afterwards?

"provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

Healthcare would fall under "general welfare" in my books.

Are we done yet?

I google so you don't have to. I give you Helvering v. Davis.

Yes, that's the Supreme Court ruling on this question in the context of the Social Security Act.

I believe between that and Steward Machine Company v. Davis, all the arguments against its constitutionality were settled.

In 1937.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What amazes me are the numbers of people telling the US Government to stay the Heck Out of their Medicare! LOL! The Irony! Promote the General Welfare is quite different from Do Nothing when Health Insurance CEO's ration and dictate your care for the Almighty Dollar, NOT Promoting the General Welfare!

@blankfist:

I'm impressed with your level of dialogue on this post. You show a better understanding of how markets can behave irrationally when small costs are forcedly imposed on a large number of people by a small number of actors, whether government or not. I sympathize more with your views realizing that your distrust of government stems from a distrust of concentrated capital in general, with government being the most extreme example. Honestly, you sound more like an anarcho-cynic than a libertarian in this conversation. Frankly, I have more respect for that. Where we differ is that I've come to see government instead as my only recourse against all those other forms of concentrated capital. This comes from my belief that democracy is the natural structural conjugate to capitalism. The two balance each other.

@Psychologic

What I really liked about your post is the emphasis on technological context. What struck me about the video is how almost all of the enumerated powers surrounded particular technologies, such as post, naval warfare, etc. Don't you suppose if planes had been invented there would be some mention of an air force? Laws always have to be revised to reflect the current technological context. Innovation confers powers to individuals not previously considered by lawmakers. Since just laws almost always heir on the side of liberty, there will thus be no statute in place to provide the necessary regulations a majority agree on. Thus, we update the law. That's why these constitutionality arguments always fall apart.

Also, I'm a computational neuroscientist, with a strong background in artificial intelligence. So your conversation about robots is rather close to my heart. I do think the ramifications of this technology have not really hit home yet. It's a large part of the reason I keep taking pay cuts to work for the government on issues clinically relevant to human vision, rather than work for the private sector on issues relevant to replacing employees and guiding missiles. Not trying to take a stand on it, just not my thing.

You know why we dont already have good things? Why we cant have good things?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Military_expenditure_by_country_map2.PNG



540 Billion Dollars a year? There is your budget for health care.

>> ^bmacs27:
@blankfist:
I'm impressed with your level of dialogue on this post. You show a better understanding of how markets can behave irrationally when small costs are forcedly imposed on a large number of people by a small number of actors, whether government or not. I sympathize more with your views realizing that your distrust of government stems from a distrust of concentrated capital in general, with government being the most extreme example. Honestly, you sound more like an anarcho-cynic than a libertarian in this conversation. Frankly, I have more respect for that. Where we differ is that I've come to see government instead as my only recourse against all those other forms of concentrated capital. This comes from my belief that democracy is the natural structural conjugate to capitalism. The two balance each other.


I'm more of a classic liberal than anything else, and I tend to find a lot of liberals like me falling into the Libertarian movement. I believe democracy comes in the form of purchasing power in the market, but I don't trust Corporations or Government. I've said countless times on here, if government didn't honor the existence of corporations, we'd be far better off. And, the fact that they've lobbied to have the same rights as individuals yet somehow have dodged the ability to be sued outside of cumbersome class actions is beyond me.

I say people can do better than government and corporation collusion. Small business is the way to go. And even if a company could be big and work on a larger level, it shouldn't be able to escape the courts.

[edit] And, to NordlichReiter's point just above. If we could cut the military industrialist spending by at least 80%, I'd bitch a lot less about domestic spending, that's for sure!

Do you trust rich individuals?

>> ^NetRunner:
I google so you don't have to. I give you Helvering v. Davis.
Yes, that's the Supreme Court ruling on this question in the context of the Social Security Act.
I believe between that and Steward Machine Company v. Davis, all the arguments against its constitutionality were settled.
In 1937.


Ya, and congress passed and repealed the prohibition act, and passed and repealed the separate but equal mess. Trusting the courts or even congress to "interpret" the constitution leads to oppression and tyranny. It is a straight forward and easy to read document, the interpretations from those cases and the ones you mentioned only lead to the perversion of the document. To say something so Carte Blanche as this is absurd. It is the reason we are having this dialogue in the first place.

>> ^bmacs27:
Do you trust rich individuals?


I trust individuals better than collections of people, whether they be rich or poor. I think government has allowed corporations to become a collection of rich people, and I fear them more than a single rich person.

My family comes from southern mill towns where rich landowners would place debts on less intelligent common folk and basically they became indentured servants. The mill town owner would work it out so the debt would compound faster than they'd be able to feasibly make the payments. The owners would also force them to shop at his general store (hugely marked up prices) and not leave the grounds. When someone tried to leave town, the owners typically paid off the sheriff who would round them up (after a good beating to discourage that kind of behavior).

They were typically rich landowners (individuals). But, they were colluding with the hired gun of the land: the government. Sheriffs tend to be elected, too.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ya, and congress passed and repealed the prohibition act, and passed and repealed the separate but equal mess. Trusting the courts or even congress to "interpret" the constitution leads to oppression and tyranny. It is a straight forward and easy to read document, the interpretations from those cases and the ones you mentioned only lead to the perversion of the document. To say something so Carte Blanche as this is absurd. It is the reason we are having this dialogue in the first place.


My point is that you're many Overton window steps away from having the kind of conversation you want to have in your heart of hearts, and really it's shifting in the other direction.

Getting rid of Medicare and Social Security are unthinkable. Universal healthcare is popular and well on its way to becoming law.

The short answer is that yes, it falls under the category of general welfare, just like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, scholarship programs, public schools, etc. etc.

But hey, it's nice to see that libertarians are dropping their pretense of constructionism and going for the idea of fresh reinterpretation of the Constitution as a living document, and judicial activism...

>> ^blankfist:

How would you arrange things differently to fix the problem you present?

ObamaCare and many other schemes like it are unconstitutional. So are Medicare, Social Security and government schools. Whether social programs are worth their salt is debatable, but they are unconstitutional. The joke on those who say otherwise is none of it will be perpetually solvent or affordable in the next 20 years. There never has been, or will be, a free lunch.

The Constitution is a negative document that LIMITS government power. Communist Obama thinks it means the opposite, one of many reasons why he's dangerous.

If the "welfare clause" meant what liberals claim it does, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have bothered to carefully enumerate the few but important legitimate powers of government.

The paradox of the Constitution is the very fools that constantly make government bigger, more intrusive and more dangerous to liberty are the ones entrusted to willfully limit government power. Any semblance of balance between the federal leviathan and the States died with States' Rights.

Liberals and now a great many fakeservatives believe the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch...a few shakes and twists of the knobs and any popular entitlement the mob wants is now a 'right'.

"A Democracy (aka mob rule) cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy." --source unknown

I trust individuals better than collections of people, whether they be rich or poor.

That's where we differ. I believe injustice is plausibly rationalized by an individual. It is less likely to be rationalized by a collection of individuals.

When you concentrate power within a single human, I become increasingly nervous.

That's why democracy is the great leveler. The more votes, the more expensive it is for one man to buy them all.

In your case, for instance, one might imagine the federal or state law should intervene and remove the sheriff from power. Presumably, the federal government is too large, and dependent on too many actors, for any individual to purchase control over it.

Likewise I'm more likely to invest my capital in a corporation with a vetted board of directors than I am some dude with an idea.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ya, and congress passed and repealed the prohibition act, and passed and repealed the separate but equal mess. Trusting the courts or even congress to "interpret" the constitution leads to oppression and tyranny. It is a straight forward and easy to read document, the interpretations from those cases and the ones you mentioned only lead to the perversion of the document. To say something so Carte Blanche as this is absurd. It is the reason we are having this dialogue in the first place.

My point is that you're many Overton window steps away from having the kind of conversation you want to have in your heart of hearts, and really it's shifting in the other direction.
Getting rid of Medicare and Social Security are unthinkable. Universal healthcare is popular and well on its way to becoming law.
The short answer is that yes, it falls under the category of general welfare, just like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, scholarship programs, public schools, etc. etc.
But hey, it's nice to see that libertarians are dropping their pretense of constructionism and going for the idea of fresh reinterpretation of the Constitution as a living document, and judicial activism...


Heart of hearts? I have no idea what you are talking about. I speak from both my heart and my head, your insinuation is rather ambiguous so I can't address what you are even speaking of.

And getting rid of those things are not unthinkable, it is exactly that closed mindedness that has made them the crazy things they are today. Just because universal health care is popular has no bearing on weather or not it should be a law. This is just as much a bush "stay the course" liberal fallacy as I could think. "Keep going with the illegal and unjust thing...because to do the opposite wouldn't be politically expedient". Like I said previous, there have been MANY bad laws in history..ask Socrates how the hemlock tasted. ("Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." --Thomas Jefferson)

Madison talked so extensively on the General welfare being a phrase that embodied the enumerated powers listed by the judge.

"I will end with a quote from my favorite American framer:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
James Madison

The important issue is not nationalized health care. The important issue is not the shifting balance of power of the Federal Government. The real issue at hand is not embodied in any of the petty disputes that are bursting like fireworks all around. Those are symptoms of our attempts to understand and rationalize a change which is beyond our ability to grasp.

The issue is imminent paradigm shift.

We tend to identify paradigm shift in terms of social 'ages'. The bronze age, the industrial age, the age of computers and they occur when advances in science and technology suddenly change the fabric of society. Trying to hold them back is like trying to hold back a bursting dam. If you succeed in the short term, you're only increasing the impact when the inevitable happens. These shifts are a result of a fundamental shift in our understanding of the world we live. They result from advances in science and technology which change the way we interact with our environment. A paradigm shift is inevitably destructive to any financial or social construct dependant on the preceding paradigm but they create a wealth of opportunity for the people who best adapt to the new paradigm. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by positioning himself to exploit the paradigm shift brought about by personal computers in the 1970's.

Here's how it plays into our debates.

The first to adapt to a new paradigm benefit first. After the initial shift, the social and economic changes become easier to understand and everyone adapts. Over time the new rules of industry become institutionalized and the playing field is well understood. In this environment macroeconomics takes hold as the strongest players increase their share of the economic pie. But while all this is happening we're moving inexorably towards the next shift. When it finally comes, all the big players are rooted in the old paradigm and they must resist the coming shift because they have become too large to adapt to the change. These are powerful entities and their continued existance depends on the status quo.

We are suffering the efforts of these powerful forces to resist a paradigm shift that's on the verge of exploding into our lives. We are all being constantly manipulated. We are being distracted with petty arguments and our prejudices and loyalties are being exploited in a tug of war between those who would maintain the status quo and those who want to bring the change. Ultimately it's all futile. Change will come and old fortunes will be lost to those who are smart enough and lucky enough to be in the right place with the right ideas. The reason it's not obvious this is happening is because it's impossible to see the new paradigm until you're looking back at the point of change.

Stop playing into the hands of the people and corporations who are attempting to paralyze the coming paradigm shift for their own benefit. This is not about liberalism versus conservatism. It's not about your faith or your neighbors science. It's about the vested interests of those who have the most to lose from change, using us all as tools to preserve their wealth and power. You'd be better served if you distanced yourself from the battle and committed your energy to understanding the changes that are coming.

"Universal healthcare is popular and well on its way to becoming law."

Maybe in your commune, but not out in the real world. Try going outside for a while instead of scouring the web all day for leftist propaganda.

>> ^bmacs27:
I trust individuals better than collections of people, whether they be rich or poor.
That's where we differ. I believe injustice is plausibly rationalized by an individual. It is less likely to be rationalized by a collection of individuals.
When you concentrate power within a single human, I become increasingly nervous.
That's why democracy is the great leveler. The more votes, the more expensive it is for one man to buy them all.
In your case, for instance, one might imagine the federal or state law should intervene and remove the sheriff from power. Presumably, the federal government is too large, and dependent on too many actors, for any individual to purchase control over it.
Likewise I'm more likely to invest my capital in a corporation with a vetted board of directors than I am some dude with an idea.


In the Apology, Plato's account of Socrates's making his defense, there is an interesting bit about your "group dynamics" that I would beg to differ about.

When the trial was over, and votes tallied, it was a very close vote as to how many thought he was guilty, nearly a split decision. However, it was enough to convict. In Greek culture, when you were found guilty, both sides got to make a case for what your punishment would be. Socrates was pretty sarcastic and said things like he should get meals for life for his services to Greece as his punishment. In the end, MORE people voted for him to be executed than people who thought he was guilty. In other words, people who thought he was innocent voted for his death. You can trust groups if you want to, me, I will trust my friends and family any day of the week.

^ The debate you want to be having the actual Congress to be having is dismantling Social Security and Medicare. That's not happening. Why? Because they'd get slaughtered the next time they went up for election.

The problem with "stay the course" wasn't that he was doing the politically expedient thing, it was that he felt it was the "right and just" thing, and was going to stick to it no matter how clearly unpopular it got.

Libertarians seem to act as though the Constitution was carved into stone tablets, and furthermore that they're the only ones who have the "correct" interpretation of it.

The honest truth is that nobody knows what the framers would think if they had watched history unfold as it has, and had access to all the knowledge we've accumulated since. They should be respected for having forged concepts that have withstood the test of time, but they were not omniscient supermen whose words and thoughts should be held sacred and immutable.

You guys are the ones who have the conceit of thinking you are the sole arbiters of what is right and wrong, and that you do not need the consent of the governed to shape government to your ideal vision.

But I guess I need to quote a framer to you to lend my argument credence, so here you go:

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson

>> ^Rotty:
"Universal healthcare is popular and well on its way to becoming law."
Maybe in your commune, but not out in the real world. Try going outside for a while instead of scouring the web all day for leftist propaganda.


That comment is part of his leftist propaganda. Say a lie long enough and everyone will think it's true.

Actually, it is popular. It's more popular than public "options" anyway.

It's popular because the balance of evidence supports it.

Don't tell that to the Austrian schoolers though. They don't believe in evidence.

In the Apology, Plato's account of Socrates's making his defense, there is an interesting bit about your "group dynamics" that I would beg to differ about.

When the trial was over, and votes tallied, it was a very close vote as to how many thought he was guilty, nearly a split decision. However, it was enough to convict. In Greek culture, when you were found guilty, both sides got to make a case for what your punishment would be. Socrates was pretty sarcastic and said things like he should get meals for life for his services to Greece as his punishment. In the end, MORE people voted for him to be executed than people who thought he was guilty. In other words, people who thought he was innocent voted for his death. You can trust groups if you want to, me, I will trust my friends and family any day of the week.

Which would be why I appreciate the meritocratic aspects of capitalism which act, again, as a conjugate to democracy.

Which (flame bait) is why I'm also for the independence of the federal reserve.

^ Indeed, and I wasn't trying to be contrary, just pointing out that in certain conditions people are not as rational as one would hope and you need a fall back for that. Pure democracy is just as capable of making horrible choices which is why a constitution, and the more basic idea of an insoluble social agreement is paramount.

^ netrunner

All social legislations only cater to a portion of the populations moral convictions at the cost of the others. It violates the ideas of freedom. The issue isn't whether I think I have the authority over you to interpret the constitution. There is a more basic set of ideas about what the constitution was setup to protect, it might be easier to deal with those first. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is about the more general starting point we have to go on for a social contract. The constitution in whole can be seen a protecting and preserving these things, both against/from others and the government itself. Meaning, no body shall wrongfully cause you death, confinement or restriction, deprivation or enforcement of ambitions.

"The short answer is that yes, it falls under the category of general welfare, just like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, scholarship programs, public schools, etc. etc."

General welfare is contained in none of these, these all have to deal with personal welfare. Your retirement, your health, your children, your continuing education all have one thing in common...you. They benefit your own life conditions and parameters at very real cost. Those costs are other people personal pursuits.

Social legislation assumes one thing, that is has found a universality. A key good to all existence that all people, regardless of objection should be coerced into capitulation to those things. I don't believe any person or government body should be capable of such a thing. I don't believe the constitution allowed for it as it was very explicit in those things which it sought to create.

The framers didn't need to be "omniscient supermen whose words and thoughts should be held sacred and immutable" to make a document that tried to preserve those things that I mentioned. However, I see, as do many, as a tyranny of some peoples personal moral values, of which some I hold, over others. This violates the heart of what we were trying to start with the whole notion of the social contract.

Neither of us need to be 100% correct about all the nooks and cranies of constitutional debates, there would be no need to talk about such things in open forum if that be the case. I would make no such assertion for myself of being without error. However, I think we can debate reasonably as to the very real problem I have with the moral problems of such laws as federal health care and other such legislative works. I find the patriot act and other such "safety" legislation just as egregious.

Consistency in the matters of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are my considerations in all matters of law. We have to look past what we want and look towards people to make those choices for themselves. Until we are all like minded in every way, social legislation will act as a tyranny against the minority.

edit: Grammar, where can I buy a pill for it

>> ^detheter:
Okay, you win Fox News. See you later America, once you're bankrupt and in the waning days of your superpower status. Better start learning chinese! seriously, listen to these guys, and one day we all will be communist (chinese).


I have already learned Chinese. Married to one.

But on the topic, they can probably run this through through the regulation of commerce clause, like they do with everything these days (because everything ultimately relates to commerce... somehow).

>>GeeSussFreak:
"The only reason they existed was because of the Great Depression, it was one of the spending programs enacted by the government to try and enable Keynesian full employment (if the private sector can't employ everyone, then it is up to the government to do so)."

100 years ago Keynes (and Keynesians) claimed that in 100 years economic depressions will have been solved. Isn't that reassuring?

100 years ago Keynes (and Keynesians) claimed that in 100 years economic depressions will have been solved. Isn't that reassuring?

Since the federal reserve act they've been shorter, less frequent, and less severe.

That is reassuring.

I still contest the major reason we are in this one is because of the repeal of depression era regulations on securities markets and banks.

Feds creation was in 1913, the great depression was in the 30s. There was no smiler event in scale or scope related to monetary policy prior to the fed; top notch job those guys are doing. I am not implying causality, just the prevention that you mentioned also does not exist.

I beg to differ...

How about the panic of 1797, lasting 3 years
Depression of 1807 lasting 7 years
Panic of 1819 lasting 5 years
Recession of 1833-34 lasting 1 year
Panic of 1837 lasting 2 years
Depression of 1839-43 lasting 4 years (attributed largely to Jackson, one of the worst in history)
Recession of 1845-46 lasting a year
recession of 1847-48 lasting a year
recession of 1853-54 1 year
Panic of 1857 18 months
recession of 1860-61 8 months
recession of 1865-67 lasting 32 months
recession of 1869-70 lasting 18 months
panic of 1873 and the ensuing long depression lasting 65 months
recession of 1882-85 lasting 38 months
recession of 1887-88 lasting 13 months
recession of 1890-91 lasting 10 months
Panic of 1893 lasting 17 months
Panic of 1896 lasting 18 months
Recession of 1899-1900 lasting 18 months
Recession of 1902-04 lasting 23 months
panic of 1907 lasting 13 months
panic of 1910-11 lasting 24 months

Bang up job the old monetary policy was doing...

The depression lasted 10 years. Jackson's inflationary depression also has central banking at the heart of the troubles.

Have any Austrian's considered that maybe pegging currency to some shiny rock was the problem?

It's called a liquidity crisis for a reason. If the gold known to be above ground were divided equally amongst the people of earth, we'd each get a cubic centimeter. There is no reason the quantity of claim checks for services should be correlated with any particular specie.

It doesn't have to be a shiny rock. In different times and cultures, different things were used. However, hard money differs from Fiat money in a very real way. Gold has a real market value, so you are just making it the common denominator. It is a known factor that is relatively stable among other known factors. Fiat can change at any given moment. Government policies can and have changed so swiftly that the price of money can pitch and throw very rapidly to very high degrees. It doesn't have to be gold, or silver even, but I think it is wise that money have a real market anchor.

edit: You can watch this is action with the value of coin melt values. Every so often, the mint have to change up coins because the inflationary policies of the land make the coinage more expensive to produce. In other words, the value of money hasn't remained as consistent to the market as the value of metals. Metals aren't perfect by any means, but our own history seems to show they are the best of what we have atm.

Why should the market for gold be any more stable than oil, or copper, or an hour at the cash register?

What you get with a shackled currency is incentivized environmental destruction, and little else. Why not, when faced with deflationary pressures, incentivize whatever would most quickly reemploy, or at least cushion the landing of, those who lost their jobs?

It's tough on the savers, but I prefer traders to savers anyhow. Besides, that's why we have social security.

>> ^NetRunner:
I google so you don't have to. I give you Helvering v. Davis.
Yes, that's the Supreme Court ruling on this question in the context of the Social Security Act.
I believe between that and Steward Machine Company v. Davis, all the arguments against its constitutionality were settled.
In 1937.


I read the links netrunner linked. Thank you. By the look of them they could be overturned by any court with a sense of logic.

By "tough on savers", what you mean is traders at the expense of savers. Traders are still free to trade in a hard currency system, they just can't wildly speculate...which has been a major problem anyway in terms of recessions and panics. How many times have savers caused an economic downturn vs how many massive speculations, panics, contagions sown by freeish money made available through government fiscal policy and lose central banking.

You are right though, there is an incentive to destroy the environment for hard currency when that currency is gold. Look at Zimbabwe, they are destroying their rivers and other live giving infrastructure. You could use something other than metals, but really, metals aren't going anywhere, the are going to be mined milled and used in other areas. Not having them as a basis of currency isn't going to stop people from wanting gold, silver, oil or whatever we wanted to choose. In fact, it is BECAUSE they are valued and hard to obtain that we wanted to select it as a currency denomination.

As I see it, when you favor Fiat currency, the evils you make are inflation (which can be rightfully called a tax), larger business cycles, and the debt monster which will one day eat your currency alive when exponential growth is no longer possible.

SS is no answer to this at all, our current SS policy is a ponzi scheme. It requires more investors to pay out dividends to the old ones. At some point, that will bust, and to the detriment of everyone alive at the time to watch it.

In short, I think central bankers morgage the future for current gains. This is at the direct cost of the savers, they are being exploited the whole while. The recent bank bust is just more case to this. The savers forced to bail out the massive speculators. Not only does their money get debased, but they have to bail them out when massive speculation made possible by freeish money finally comes crashing down.

No, what I mean by "tough on savers" is that savers will be forced to sell their gold for fiat money before paying taxes. That is, by using what I presume to be your definition of saving, which in reality is gold speculation.

I don't view debt as a monster. I view it as the engine of economic growth. Debt allows a business to grow, and offer more goods and services. Agreed, when we are hit with a confluence of unpaid debts, things come crashing down. The right response, is to cushion the fall, maintain price stability, and reallocate the money printed to cover the debts toward growth industry.

I've wondered recently how it would change peoples' opinions if individual states started public health care systems.

Generally speaking, I sure think it would be nice to have more drastic differences between states. Wouldn't it be great to move an hour or two away and be under a vastly different government? Unfortunately, I suspect states in the same region wouldn't end up being much different from each other, so you'd end up having to move across the country to get something different.

>> ^marinara:
I read the links netrunner linked. Thank you. By the look of them they could be overturned by any court with a sense of logic.

On what grounds?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^ netrunner
All social legislations only cater to a portion of the populations moral convictions at the cost of the others. It violates the ideas of freedom. The issue isn't whether I think I have the authority over you to interpret the constitution. There is a more basic set of ideas about what the constitution was setup to protect, it might be easier to deal with those first. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is about the more general starting point we have to go on for a social contract. The constitution in whole can be seen a protecting and preserving these things, both against/from others and the government itself. Meaning, no body shall wrongfully cause you death, confinement or restriction, deprivation or enforcement of ambitions.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution. That document starts off:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

>> ^NetRunner:
A perfect Union does not let someone die from illness because they don't have money in their pockets. It is not Justice to say that a man's right to property supersedes another man's right to live. The general welfare is promoted by keeping people healthy and free of disease. I am not Blessed with Liberty if I have to bankrupt myself just to keep living.


Who's giving their own interpretation of the text? Being blessed with liberty has nothing to do with bankrupting yourself just to stay alive, and certainly a more perfect union does not equate to affordable health care. It's all hyperbole. The preamble is important to read, but it shouldn't be regarded solely as the sum of the Constitution. They do get a bit deeper into the limited powers of government if you'd care to read a bit further down the page.

And, Amendment 10 reads "The governmental powers not listed in the Constitution for the national government are powers that the states, or the people of those states, can have."

It cannot be clearer. The federal government does NOT have the power to offer health care or social security or medicaid or medicare or any welfare program.

"provide for common defense and general welfare"...

You're right... they couldn't have been clearer...

>> ^blankfist:
Who's giving their own interpretation of the text?

I am. I don't have a problem with the Constitution being open to interpretation. I have a problem with people who put forward the idea that their interpretation is somehow privileged. I prefer to argue for or against laws passed by congress, or actions taken by the executive on their merits directly.

I certainly think domestic surveillance is a violation of my 4th amendment rights, but I'm not really against domestic surveillance because it's unconstitutional, I'm against it because it's immoral.

If you guys think guaranteed health care to people is some moral offense, go ahead and make the argument on those grounds.

If you think it shouldn't be considered at all on Constitutional grounds, because you read the document to mean something different from what the Supreme Court and most other people do, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're still limited to the same recourse as us. Fight a case to the Supreme Court after it passes, convince the legislature to see things your way, or convince the President to veto it before it passes. Or fight and win a revolution.

You don't get a special right to autocratically run the government because you think you have a special understanding of the Constitution.

They do get a bit deeper into the limited powers of government if you'd care to read a bit further down the page.
And, Amendment 10 reads "The governmental powers not listed in the Constitution for the national government are powers that the states, or the people of those states, can have."

Actually, the 10th Amendment text is:

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.

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^marinara:
I read the links netrunner linked. Thank you. By the look of them they could be overturned by any court with a sense of logic.
On what grounds?



Steward Machine Company v. Davis,
The ruling is a blunt slush of arguments. Basically they say that taxing people is making them happy. Therefore the government has a right to tax.

This is against all the other principles of the constitution, you can't rob peter just because it makes everyone happy. The constitution is a document that limits government power, it doesn't say "do anything and everything that might make people happy." The USA constitution is exceptional that way. And inconvenient.

Yeah, Supreme Court sides with Netrunner.

The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away. In this case.... just 2 words: "general welfare"

I think the writers of the constitution tried to forge a principle, and then 200 years of politicians eroded that into the upside down system we have today.

I wish we were arguing this fervently against the military spending. Sigh.

>> ^blankfist:
I wish we were arguing this fervently against the military spending. Sigh.


agreed.

>> ^marinara:
Steward Machine Company v. Davis,
The ruling is a blunt slush of arguments. Basically they say that taxing people is making them happy. Therefore the government has a right to tax.

They're responding to a broad slush of arguments, most of which say "taxes make me unhappy, so they're unconstitutional" and "states are sovereign, nyah" neither of which impressed the court.

This is against all the other principles of the constitution, you can't rob peter just because it makes everyone happy. The constitution is a document that limits government power, it doesn't say "do anything and everything that might make people happy." The USA constitution is exceptional that way. And inconvenient.

Which principles in the constitution are you talking about? The part where it gives it the power to regulate commerce? The part where it gives it the power to make money, and regulate its value? The part where it establishes a national postal service, and national roads? The part where it gives it the power to purchase land, even without consent?

It seems to me they granted it a large amount of leeway in getting involved in the construction and maintenance of the nation's fundamental infrastructure, as well as many rights with regard to creating security for the nation.

If medical care had been as advanced and as expensive as it is today in 1789, I'm certain the framers would have considered it part of people's right to life, part of the nation's duty to defend that right (and then granted some sort of exception that let the South deny it to black people).

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

The boundless scope of the general welfare clause was never the intentionality of it. It was confined to the powers granted by the other articles. There would be no limit to the power of this clause otherwise, you could justify anything. Seeking to empower government with inscrutable power will lead to disaster and oppression.

Okay, a founder-off then. Here's what Hamilton has to say:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.