I see this played out here on FR.
So many people here do not understand Constitutional authority.
Take the recent "discussion" on healthcare.
So many here want to discuss it from a policy level, how the GOP needs to address certain policy issues such that they can then pass the "best" healthcare act.
Little to no discussion on whether there is a constitutional authority problem. Just accept the premise that the federal government needs to be involved and go from there.
Bring up the Constitutional authority question, and they go berserk.
The vast majority of members of this site are perfectly aware of the Constitutional issues you cite with respect to health care and the federal government's involvement therewith.
Just because some happen to disagree with respect to how to proceed doesn't mean that anyone has suddenly forgotten about the Constitution.
For instance, your assertion regarding Constitutional authority might apply absolutely to Medicaid, for instance.
For instance, there might be near unanimous consensus here that the federal Medicaid and Medicare "laws" are patently unconstitutional in both theory and practice.
That doesn't mean that the solution is to, say, start a violent civil war immediately in order to solve the "unconstitutional Medicaid" problem.
Adopting a condescending attitude towards those who believe in taking a different approach than someone else is not justifiable.
So thanks for the civics lesson, but I think you'll find that, in general, the average schmuck on FR knows as much about "Constitutional authority" as you do.
Don't be conceited...
Want to show us the Constitutional Authority to control aircraft of space ships to the moon? None of that is mentioned because it didn't exist and healthcare, such as it was, leaches and all, didn't either.
Yep, we have been arguing about the wrong issue from the start.
Then is NO constitutional authority for ObamaCare, RyanCare, TrumpCare, or any other care, period.
We get shouted down as “purists”
Thanks to our ilk nothing got passed.
“Bring up the Constitutional authority question, and they go berserk.”
On the war on drugs, too.
Agreed! But after the Constitutional question there needs to be a political discussion. We need to keep our principals front and center but never miss the chance to step towards them even if it is a smaller step than desired.
“Little to no discussion on whether there is a constitutional authority problem. Just accept the premise that the federal government needs to be involved and go from there.”
Thank you! I’ve been saying that for years now.
Unfortunately, the Constitution left loopholes that Congress and the bureaucracy can use to justify just about anything they want to do, from the Interstate Commerce clause to turning Section 8, Article 18 inside out.
They see only the “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper...” part of Article 18, and miss the rest “...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.” which properly limits the whole thing.
That and the words “General Welfare” in Section 8, Article 1, have been interpreted to give the Federal Government pretty much absolute power.
Those things combined with the twisted minds of lawyers (who manage to turn the 2nd Amendment inside out!) have led us to the current straights.
The mandate is unconstitutional, but we have 4 activists + 1 coward who saved it. Until Darth Bader keels over, there’s not much we can do about that.
Yes, there are many layers to this. There’s a lot of infighting here too about the best way to try and dismantle Obamacare and the authoritarian state that the left has created. I myself go back and forth between trying to fight it within the lines and just preparing myself for the fallout for when the social compact officially fractures.
But, our arguments over short-term strategies notwithstanding, I don’t see any long-term political solution with the left. We’re 2 different countries trying to co-exist under old political boundaries, which could work to some degree if the left would try to leave different peoples in different states alone. But, as Greenfield points out, they are an authoritarian movement that will accept nothing short of full political surrender.
We have nothing in common with these people anymore besides language (to an ever decreasing extent) and some leisure activities (who cares?). I hope Calexist is successful. Actually, I kind of hope for a full dissolution of the union so that like-minded states can create their own unions - or go it alone. I don’t know that I ever see the left accepting this solution either, however, which means we’ll probably have to start shooting them, at some point.
Exactly.
Amen. Neither the Legislature nor the Executive and certainly not the Judiciary are authorized under the Constitution to make or mandate any kind of a healthcare/insurance plan for us. By no means and God forbid!
Because most people don't understand the Constitution, don't care about the Constitution, and if they did understand it might not like the Constitution.
As a practical matter the FedGov has operated, what, something like 80% of the Government outside the Constitution since at least FDR (maybe earlier).
It's sort of a precious Icon of a past era at this point, not an active document. Sure both sides cite it once in a while when then need to win an argument.
The liberal justices have effectively destroyed it. If a majority (and also a majority of GOP appointed justices) can turn Gay Marriage into a right -- based on the Constitution -- it's not really an operative document at this point.
It's arguably not even useful, it's counter-productive. It's been used far more to smash through the native people and their innate conservatism than it has to support either.
There is a reason that many neo-reactionaries believe that aristocracies are better and maintaining both individual rights and cultural cohesion than constitutional republics.