When someone starts by using condescending sarcasm, you can tell that the quality of the reasoning is going to be unimpressive.
I would point out that the fifth item on the list involves the abolition of SAMHSA, which is something that even a faux Constitutionalist like Ron Paul would endorse.
Issues relating to confidentiality, as represented in item 2, speak to an issue that is of very recent "Constitutional" vintage. You wrote:
Privacy restrictions are upon the government, not on other parties.
While that's not coherent English, I take it that you are arguing that there is some kind of absolute Constitutional "right to privacy." If there is, that "right" was unknown until it emanated from the penumbras of the Warren Court in the 1970s.
The second item quite reasonably argues that if someone is going to be legally liable for the health of their dependent child, they should be allowed to know what the health status of their child actually is.
The third item discusses reducing the ability of Medicaid to provide cash incentives for "treating and streeting" mental patients. If one wants to argue that Medicaid is unconstitutional, I'm not sure why reducing Medicaid's power and scope, is somehow even more unconstitutional than Medicaid itself.
The fourth item calls for the tightening up of the definition of mental illness to focus on those who are truly mentally compromised, instead of the very broad and open-ended federal standards we have now. This again calls for a narrowing of federal power and arbitrariness and a reining in of federal overreach. I'm not sure how this is unconstitutional but the existing very broad and formless federal mandate is somehow constitutional.
And the first item, calling for a federal law to ensure public safety is kind of the point of federal legislation in the first place.
let's continue the fiction that some vast intelligence is invested in Washington DC and that they'll come up with some solution
These 5 points are not calling for intellectual gymnastics, but common sense and the reduction of the power and discretion of federal entities.
There should be an FR award for reasoned and logical responses to the knee-jerk posts of people who likely didn't read the original article anyway. Well-said. You deserve the award for today.
Jaffe's arguments are sound, but I think you have pointed out their Achille's Heel. "Reduction of the power and discretion of federal entities" is not easily achieved. It is my opinion that the government has reached that point where it exists only for self-perpetuation, regardless of how well it disguises that motivation via language touting the common good.
And as long as those on the right and the left continue to seek the redefinition of mental illness as "the mindset of my ideological adversary," very little progress in reining in the state is likely to occur.