Jump to content
"The federal government had to pass a constitutional amendment to give it power to make alcohol illegal nationally. Why didn't they have to do the same for marijuana? Again, when the constitution is violated for the supposed good it's violated for the bad too."
How is the Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional? It's the legislation which enacted the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, a treaty duly enacted and ratified by the Executive and Legislative branches according to the Constitution, and upheld by the Judiciary as not infringing on any Constitutional rights. It has always been foolish to list marijuana on Schedule I and conduct a "war on drugs" making a mockery of the 4th Amendment, sure, but the reason they (meaning We) didn't need an amendment, is it's the Constitution itself which says so.
"You won't find any unconstitutional rulings on Medicare anymore than you will find them on federal marijuana laws because the courts have been compromised by activists."
Oh yes, how they have been! Conservative activist judges legislating from the bench bugs the crap out of me, particularly when they're blithe about overturning 230 years of precedent based on doing some sort of hula around the "original meaning" of the Constitution. The result in my lifetime, has been a steady progression of constitutional rights being applied to the artificial legal construct known as "the corporation."
There has long been a "legal fiction" known as "corporate personhood" which is morphing into a truism -- the Citizens United decision was the first to declare that corporations have freedom of speech, then the Hobby Lobby decision used that precedent plus an "originalist" interpretation of "personhood" at odds with its long-standing status as a legal fiction to grant Freedom of Religion to corporations.
"Just to be clear about the decision: Gorsuch and others didn’t just rule that Hobby Lobby’s owners had constitutionally-protected religious beliefs, but that the artificial legal creation of the state itself, Hobby Lobby Incorporated, possessed religious convictions."
This is a blatant, deliberate misunderstanding of what a "right" is. The Bill of Rights doesn't confer upon me any rights, it recognizes that natural-born persons have rights bestowed on them by their Creator, and enjoins the Federal Government from violating them. This creates a dilemma, in that an artificial legal construct is a creation of the Government, so only the Government can confer First Amendment rights on a corporation.
That's an activist judge legislating from the bench, overturning duly-enacted legislation, by conferring religious rights on a corporation in order to justify the desired outcome, instead of ruling on the merits of the case -- how could Congress have made an error, when it was unknown until 2014 that it was even possible to "violate corporate religious rights?"
"Now states can do what they want, but federal run healthcare any style is unconstutional per the tenth amendment. This crap that the general welfare clause, commerce clause, necessary and proper clause and the phony Federal Supremacy Clause, which can't be found anywhere in the constitution, allows for the federal government to take over an industry is absurd on its face."
No, that's your opinion that's completely unsupported except by your determined insistence upon it, and perhaps listening to too much right-wing talk radio. Government-run health insurance, and even healthcare, has been around for ages and lawsuits opposing it on 10th-amendment grounds have always been laughed out of court by generations of judges, from across the political spectrum, at all levels of the judiciary.
The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Not sure how they've "taken over the industry" or how single-payer would amount to that.
I'm also not sure how 26% of eligible voters electing Trump, amounts to some sort of referendum against single-payer. Or how the failure of Colorado's flawed effort means voters disapprove of the entire concept.
Anyway, I believe the topic is health insurance, and I support federal single-payer as likely the only way I'll ever have it again. In terms of altering the ACA, I do like the GOP idea to repeal the tax penalty and replace it with a lapsed-coverage penalty. Not that any of it matters to me, as my only options under ACA would cost 85% of my income, but thanks for the tax penalty two years running, Obama.
I'm opposed to the entire notion of capitalized health insurance. All it's led to is a spectacular mess. David, 24M Americans aren't so opposed to government-run health insurance that they'd rather go back to just not having any, but half of us it was supposed to cover still aren't and that's just a drain on the economy.
As an entrepreneur, I find it ridiculous that above some number of employees I have to make Human Resources a core competency to manage their health insurance. Shouldn't be any of my business. I should be comfortable in the knowledge that my workers' health coverage is something I can take for granted, and that no disgruntled worker is sticking it out (and to me) instead of moving on because their health insurance is tied to their job.
Is single-payer socialized medicine? No, nor is it government-run healthcare. It's socialized medical insurance because profit margin has no place in life-or-death healthcare decisions -- death's more profitable. Healthcare (except the VA) would still be capitalist, and Type II Diabetes will still further-bankrupt this country in the near future. Regardless of whether the next solution's socialist or capitalist, there's nothing unconstitutional about Congress passing legislation regulating this market under the Commerce Clause in order to promote the general welfare of We The People.
"There is no reasonable debate that the Bill of Rights dramatically changed Article 1 through establishing articulated limits to Congress' authority to make laws. The difference between 'no articulated limits whatsoever' and 'specific articulated limits' was a dramatic change."
Imposing restrictions by recognizing natural rights explains the first 8 amendments. The unreasonable debate you're trying to support, is that the 10th Amendment invalidates any action by Congress not spelled out in Article I Section 8, because it somehow "overturns" the Commerce Clause, etc.
Which is simply wrong, and why the 10th Amendment says "delegated" not "enumerated" according to Madison -- Article I Section 8 was not meant as a be-all, end-all list providing a clear line between State and Federal authority. Non-enumerated powers are delegated to Congress by various clauses, and I know of nothing in the ratification-convention records for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights which supports your contentions otherwise.
Let alone this notion that the Preamble is invalidated, or meaningless. Promoting the general welfare (if you want enlightenment on what the Founders thought it meant, read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice instead of Ayn Rand), etc. in the thesis statement is elaborated upon by the various clauses you think the 10th Amendment somehow invalidates along with rendering the Preamble irrelevant as a premise for any of 'em.
"Don't take my word for it. I put more confidence in Cornell Law School than either Eric or Chris' imagination."
Heh. Your link contradicts your own statements that the Preamble, because it carries no legal weight, must not be relevant. However:
"The Preamble to the Constitution is an introductory, succinct statement of the principles at work in the full text..."
You keep stating that the 10th Amendment somehow means the Preamble doesn't apply. Whereas 230 years of jurisprudence has upheld the use of enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 to provide for the social welfare of the country. Then you point to this:
"Courts will not interpret the Preamble to confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution."
But, the Constitution, through the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause, the Treaty Clause, etc. directly empowers Congress to act in accordance with, well, the Preamble. Calling you out for having an extremist opinion about the Constitution based in your notion that it's all been negated by the Tenth Amendment, is not an ad-hominem attack.
When you're asked for citations to back up your position, like I've provided, your response is to accuse ME of imagining things? Well, that's an ad-hominem argument. Best you got?
Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."
I just have to wonder if that wouldn't have been worded differently if what you believe, were true:
"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, due to the document being wholly unsatisfactory despite its ratification, that the whole gosh-darn thing be changed to mean something else, as a vote of public no-confidence in our new form of Government, will best insure it isn't taken seriously as an institution."
Preventing misconstruction or abuse of the governmental system laid out, is not the same thing as overturning/overriding/altering ANY of it. Which later amendments set out specifically to do, nothing unconstitutional about it, just not what the Bill of Rights is about! By any stretch.
"The point of the entire Bill of Rights was to overturn the new Federal government's unlimited authority and made significant changes to the original Constitution."
Seriously, if you think any of the Bill of Rights negates the "Necessary and Proper" clause, surely if you're right, you can cite references where a court has agreed with you? All the Bill of Rights does is limit that clause to those things which aren't blatant violations of our rights. But claiming the Bill of Rights negates Necessary & Proper or any other clause, is a serious misunderstanding of pretty much everything about the government of this country.
No, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was NOT to "overturn" the new Constitution in favor of your preferred form of government (whatever that may be). It's a codicil, i.e. elaborates on the premises of the Constitution. While it restricts various powers granted to the three branches of Government in order to protect our rights as citizens, it does NOT "overturn" the Constitution! Not even the preamble.
Maybe you can cite some sort of legal precedent, or peer-reviewed scholarly work to support your argument, as I have?
What "significant changes" are you talking about? If you already believe that the 10th Amendment negates the Preamble and the Commerce Clause, what about the Supremacy Clause, Treaty Clause, or the Necessary and Proper clause? If our Constitution was that horrific that it immediately needed nullification (via the RATIFICATION process, somehow, in your worldview), then shouldn't it have been rejected and re-written instead of clarified and limited?
Clarifying and limiting is one thing, but you seem to be arguing that the 10th Amendment trumps pretty much the entire Constitution, which certainly isn't what the courts think. Unless you're saying that 230 years of jurisprudence is entirely wrong and that what you think should be weighted above that, "just because?"
"What about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? Aren’t they limits comparable to the First and Second Amendments? The answer is “no.” The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are clarifying, not substantive rules. If the Constitution grants the federal government a power through the Treaty Clause, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments do not apply."
The Treaty Clause is the "supreme law of the land" but that doesn't mean our rights can be negated by treaties. It does mean the federal government can legislate (as per the Necessary and Proper clause) in support of a treaty, and the States have to go along with that legislation, provided it's Constitutional, 10th Amendment be damned because that isn't what it's there for.
"The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791 and necessarily overturned parts of the original Constitution."
What parts? References? Seriously, what in the Constitution (besides apparently pretty much all of it) do you think is "overturned" by the Bill of Rights? Specifically, now, with cited precedent, if that's not too much to ask?
"But based on your own statement about interstate commerce; because we are not allowed to purchase across state lines for health insurance it is therefore intrastate commerce by definition and not covered by the commerce clause anyway."
Insurance companies sell their products (policies) in all the States. Therefore insurance is, by definition, interstate commerce. Unless you're using some other definition of that term, which doesn't have 230 years of legal precedent behind it?
"It's the first ten amendments and most certainly did limit the general welfare clause if not overturning it entirely..."
Wow. That's, just, well erm... creative interpretation. Madison didn't agree to negate everything he wrote in the Constitution via the Bill of Rights. No. Sorry. Please don't re-write history to fit your worldview... You've really got how the Constitution and Bill of Rights work, just exactly backwards. Yes, there is a difference between the Bill of Rights and other amendments, if you're reading the Bill of Rights as negating anything in the Constitution, you get an F in Civics.
"Against the Tenth Amendment's text, history, and jurisprudence, Tenth Amendment (and related federalism) claims against the ACA, both in the litigation and in the public debates, are simply breathtaking. In short, they are bald-faced attempts to rewrite the Tenth Amendment and give birth to an entirely new kind of federalism, one that has no support in the text, history, or practice of the Tenth Amendment."
There IS NO "clear delineation of power" between State and Federal, there's lots of ambiguity and uncertainty, because the Founders were only laying out a framework for governing the United States. Otherwise there would be a precise list laying out exactly what you're reading into things, which is exactly what Madison argued would be a silly thing to do (as absolute laws would negate the need for that 3rd branch of government to interpret), and why the wording of the 10th Amendment -- delegated vs. enumerated -- is what it is.
What you think the Constitution is, sounds rather like the much-more-republican Articles of Confederation, which didn't work, hence their replacement by the much-more-federalist Constitution. You can't just ignore the Preamble and declare that the 10th Amendment somehow negates it, as that would result in some other form of government entirely. The Preamble is the "thesis" of the Constitution, so while it carries no legal weight, if you're interpreting the Constitution in a way that goes against its own thesis, then perhaps you're simply wrong? ;)
Last login: Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |