chunkymonster :
No surprise that wanamingo and johnsonma agree with gamerk316, all three of them are cut from the same progressive cloth! All three of then lack the fundamental understanding and knowledge on the mechanics of a representative republic. All three of them are willing slaves to the government because they falsely believe someone else knows how to run their life better than they do. All three of them fail to understand the differences between natural law, rights, and societal benefits. All three of them believe that their rights are given to them by the government. All three of them think that because they believe in government providing a greater good that it grants them a moral superiority over those who disagree with them. All three of them a just useful idiots to the erosion of the american republic and willing players in the sinking of american society to the lowest common denominator.
Funny, in a represenative republic, aren't the people responsible for putting the government in power? By arguing that you can't trust the government, therefore, you are arguing that you can't trust the people who elected said government. Taken to the obvious conclusion, you can therefore make the argument that Democracy in this country has failed.
Let me help you out. First off, Obama got 3.6 million LESS popular votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, while Romney got 938,000 MORE popular votes than McCain did in 2008. If anything, that shows a swing in the electorate towards Republicans than it does a swing towards Democrats. And, no, more Republicans were NOT sent to the House in 2012 compared to 2008, the Republicans actually lost 8 seats to Democrats. So again, its only by skewed progressive logic does Democrats gaining 8 seats in the House equal more Republicans sent to the House.
First and foremost, I note you totally opposing logic for your first two sentences.
Secondly, you miss the point on the House:
Combined, House races has more Democratic votes then Republican votes. Yet, despite the fact Democrats received more votes in House races, they have LESS representation in the house of congress that is supposed to "represent the people". Thats the result of gerrymandering, not the will of the people.
See, this is where you and I completely diverge. I believe, rightly, that the United States is a nation of law and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution, then it is not within the purview and powers of the Federal government, i.e.; it is wrong and/or an usurpation of power from the People for the Federal government to exercise any power not granted to them by the Constitution. This is why the Constitution was written, why the verbiage and prose was specifically chosen, to spell out what powers are given to the government by the People and that all other rights and privileges are reserved to the People. It does not take a scholar to read the Constitution, but it does take some intellectual maturity and wisdom to understand and apply the principles spelled out in it.
Lets highlight the Constitution then, shall we?
Taxing and Spending Clause:
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;
The biggest ruling on this clause was in US v. Butler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler
The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
In short: Congress has the ability to pass a tax to pay for any act that has the net effect of being in the US's general interests.
Next up: Necessary and Proper:
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Emphasis mine. Combined with the Taxing and Spending clause, this explicitly allows the passing of any law or act that is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Landmark case, of course, was McCulloch v Maryland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
This fundamental case established the following two principles:
The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
Then of course, the Commerce Clause:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
------------------------------------------
There is a massive irony to the people who claim "You can't do it if its not explicit". Lets look at the explicit powers of Congress, shall we?
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;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
A few minor points here: No mention of an Air Force for one, so obviously, that must be unconstitutional under your interpretation to the Constitution. Neither is there a clause allowing for the purchase of land from a foreign nation, so you must argue the US is limited to just the original 13 states + DC. Heck, you can even make the argument that because the Articles of Confederation gave no mechanism for it to be overturned, the Constitutions itself is illegal for conflicting with the Articles of Confederation!
Its the first of these clauses that gives Congress its power, and the courts have routinely upheld this point throughout US history. The people arguing otherwise, more often then not, could not be US citizens if their viewpoint was correct. Hence why no decision ever has referenced the 10th Ammendment, which is understood to have no power whatsoever, as the states rights are limited, due to the clauses above, to what is explicitly given to them in the Constitution.
Hence why the ACA decision was such an interesting one. I think its clear to everyone Roberts only wanted to chuck the individual mandate, but there wasn't the votes for that decision, so he had to choose to either chuck the entire thing, or keep the entire thing. He basically threw both sides a bone: He ruled the General Welfare clause, by itself is not enough for the US government to force commerce with private business (I do note: This leaves open the possibility of a public option). But at the same time, arguing the court must look for a reason to uphold the law, even if its not the argument being made (basically, punting the issue at hand), ruled that the powers granted to Congress under the Taxing and Spending clause do give Congress the power to tax for NOT engaging in commerce. EG: It would be illegal for Congress to make not purchasing health insurance a felony, but it is NOT illegal for them to tax you for not getting insurance (Unhealthiness tax). [Frankly, this was the way I always thought the law SHOULD have been argued in the first place, and I'm glad Roberts came to the same conclusion on his own.]
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram