Posted on 02/16/2004 7:50:27 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
Then maybe you should define the term and the difference. Because I'm using it to mean the government as in definitions 1a and 2a below.
1a A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
1b A nation that has such a political order.
2a A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
2b A nation that has such a political order. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
If that autonomy can be set aside any time the federal government sees some promotion of the "general welfare" (usually more accurately described as "special interest welfare") then there is no autonomy, and if there is no autonomy, there is no republic.
Agreed, but I don't think they can. SCOTUS has moved to protect rights reserved to states in the past when this is challenged (Well unless it interferes with their liberal abortiongayfest). I don't think any state has challenged the SSA or Medicare. That's part of the problem. It's not loss of autonomy if the state's aren't challenging it.
If someone exceeds their authority are my rights necessarily violated? no. If someone violates my rights, is my autonomy threatened? Probably not.
Do you agree that maintaining the health and viability of the republic is necessary for the general welfare?
Yes, of course I agree. Are we in danger of that? Probably not. Is our government operating at optimal levels? Of course not. Would strict adherence to your version of constitutional limits help more than it would hinder the country? Impossible to say.
If your rights include having that someone (or something) operate only within their scope of authority, they are. If the right that is violated is the right to make your own decisions, then your autonomy is threatened.
Yes, of course I agree. Are we in danger of that? Probably not. Is our government operating at optimal levels? Of course not. Would strict adherence to your version of constitutional limits help more than it would hinder the country? Impossible to say.
There we are getting into speculation and subjective determinations. For now, I will merely say that I believe the question as to what the republic has to do with general welfare has been answered ( I hope).
Tell me what happens when a hospital is removed from the Medicare system because it didn't jump through enough inane regulatory hoops to satisfy the Medicare bureaucracy. Or to welfare recipients who have to stop working in order to qualify for the benefits. Or to "independent" religious institutions who stand to lose their tax breaks if their activities are deemed to political for the IRS's commissars. To say that the offering of money or monetary breaks doesn't result in increased federal control over society and its institutions is to completely ignore the reality.
Mostly what we are talking about are the care of the poor and disabled, which is either temporary and there is no dependency...
Doesn't matter if it's temporary. If "temporary" dependency on the federal government is constitutional, then there's no possible dividing line to prevent it from becoming permanent and ever more entrenched, as our own experience is showing. Try telling a prosecutor that you were just "temporarily" greasing your local political hack. If money is presumed to have an inherently corruptive influence when it flows in one direction (even when no actual tit-for-tat can be proved), then it likewise has an inherently corruptive influence in the other direction.
Of course, as you've pointed out to another on this thread, it's impossible to prevent government from spending money to people if it's to do its job, but the corruptive nature of it is always there, and that's why it needs to be kept under control. To say that the national government can just spend money on anything it deems to be in the service of the "general welfare" leaves it dangerously uncontrolled.
...or permanent and the disabled would be dependent on the local community, the state or the federal government anyway.
From the perspective of the U.S. Constitution, it's fine if state and local governments spend money almost as freely as they please (with very few exceptions) - see the 10th amendment. States can be allowed a much broader scope of powers than the federal government because there are other factors that limit their ability to be overbearing with those powers - among them, the greater proportion each citizen's voice has at the state than at the federal level, the economic competition between states that encourages frugality, and the threat that people might move to other states if their government proves too oppressive.
It's helping the poor and disabled and providing disaster relief. That is necessary and proper for the general welfare of us all.
As I've been trying to explain to you, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what is "necessary and proper for the general welfare". What it does give it is the power to do what's necessary and proper to carry out its specific mandates, none of which have anything to do with charity work. If you think Congress should have that power, then there is the amendment process.
I agree Medicare regulations are inane, welfare should never incent people to quit work, it should be the opposite, religious organizations shouldn't have to tread lightly on political issues. But a balance must be struck on all of these things.
You don't deny people medical care, just because the bureacrats made it complicated. You work to simplify it. You don't let poor people starve just because there are disincentives to work in the system, you remove the disincentives. You don't tax religious institutions just because a line has to be drawn somewhere between what constitutes a religios organization and a political organization. Most churches don't have a problem helping their members choose between right and wrong even in political contexts.
"If "temporary" dependency on the federal government is constitutional, then there's no possible dividing line to prevent it from becoming permanent and ever more entrenched "
If there are no controls on the stearing wheel then it's possible you can steer it into the ditch. There is no dividing line. Nor should there be. That's why we have frequent elections so that we can hold our representatives responsible. Our reps are steering that car, that's the only dividing line you need. If you have hard and fast dividing lines you make government rigid and unable to respond to changing conditions.
"If money is presumed to have an inherently corruptive influence when it flows in one direction (even when no actual tit-for-tat can be proved), then it likewise has an inherently corruptive influence in the other direction."
You've just defined all money flow as corrupt. It is not. There are situations where it is corrupt. Those need to be dealt with and not ignored. We will never be free of corruption as long as man's nature remains unchanged. That Corruption exists does not excuse us from our responsibilities.
I understand your view on the constitution. I'm just not sure I agree with it. And I just don't think we would have ended up anywhere different. We would have given the feds the authority to do the programs that need to be done at the fed level. Therefore, the corruption and mismanagement would still exist. We just wouldn't be arguing about whether it was constitutional or not. Perhaps we'd be arguing about how to fix it.
To be more specific, I'm characterizing the flow of free money as having a nearly universal corrupting nature, in that the recipient tends to be corrupted into an unhealthy dependence on the donor. In that situation he begins to lose the ability to exercise independent will. That's especially corruptive of a free society when the government is the donor, as is becoming more and more apparent.
I agree Medicare regulations are inane, welfare should never incent people to quit work, it should be the opposite, religious organizations shouldn't have to tread lightly on political issues.
It's not just that these things are undesirable; it's that they create an improper relationship between government and governed that becomes dangerous to liberty. So it's not just a question of whether the feds should be doing it, but a question of whether they should even be in a position to do it. And in fact, the Constitution has answered that question. It has not given the federal government power over social welfare. That job has been left to the states, for better or for worse.
I disagree. Certainly it can be. But if it is managed well, then it they will not become dependent on it, unless their situation like the disabled is such that the dependency is permanent.
So even if we determined the Feds didn't have the authority and moved it to the states. You would see the states picking up the burden. The required taxes to do so would simply shift from the Feds to the State. Now granted, the states might do a better job managing it. But more likely one or two states would begin to shirk their responsibility resulting in a downward spiral among all states. The resulting inpact on our economy would be significant. Economic turmoil would be higher, economic risks and associated costs would be higher with a resulting decrease in the valuation of equities. Crime would increase as those temporarily down on their luck in an increasingly changing job market become desperate.
The downside to not having that support is worse than having a poorly managed program. Certainly I think the government can do a better job, But if you move it to the states, you would need to allow the states to track individuals and stop the resettlement of individuals who come from states that do not have a reciprocal agreement. We would lose some of our freedoms as states moved to block people coming from shirker states. It happened before, it'll happen again.
It is a responsibility of government and the founding fathers clearly believed that, even if they didn't want it as a federal responsibility.
Unfortunately, there's no possible constitutional standard for "managed well". Otherwise, there'd be no point in limiting federal powers - all that would be necessary is that they be "managed well". The whole point of limiting the powers of the federal government is that when it's given too much power over such a vast society, it's not likely to manage them well, and that's going to be dangerous to liberty. That's why responsibility for social welfare was not vested in the federal government.
But more likely one or two states would begin to shirk their responsibility resulting in a downward spiral among all states.
This downward spiral, as I said earlier, would only happen in the context of those unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions that require states to provide the same social benefits to new arrivals, who've never paid anything into their system and owe nothing to that state in return, as they do to longtime citizens. Once that ruling's done away with, that's far less likely to happen.
But if you move it to the states, you would need to allow the states to track individuals and stop the resettlement of individuals who come from states that do not have a reciprocal agreement. We would lose some of our freedoms as states moved to block people coming from shirker states.
If you're able to pay your own way, as most people are, then there's no need for a state to "block" you from moving in. It's only if you wanted to mooch off their welfare system without having paid into it, that they might be inclined to say no. And they're perfectly entitled to do so.
The downside to not having that support is worse than having a poorly managed program.
I'd strongly dispute that. The federal welfare program has been largely responsible for keeping people in poverty, and for keeping entire regions in a permanent state of economic depression. The Medicare system and its regulatory spawn is killing the healthcare industry. And that's not even getting into the costs these things impose on society through high taxation, and the attendant poverty that results therefrom.
Right from the beginning, with the New Deal, federal efforts to "provide for the general welfare" have done just the opposite. There's absolutely no excuse for a major depression to have lasted over ten years. That it did shows the utter failure of FDR's near-socialist ideology.
FDR didn't start the depression. His policies may have extended it. But the sharp tax increase prior to the New Deal did the most harm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.