What socialist services does the US government provide?

[Moontanman]

im pretty sure the OP wasn't about whether or not the government is socialist, it was just a sort of list of socialist services the government is providing.

 

Zolar, have you been following this thread? I have and it has gotten way off the original OP.

[Zolar V]

Zolar, have you been following this thread? I have and it has gotten way off the original OP.

 

why yes, yes i have been folowing.

it really hasn't gotten to far off track.

anyways i was just trying to remind everyone that the op was not about the US being socialist, it was discussing what programs, if any, were socialistic in nature.

 

"here were very few programs mention in the OP, that were Federal in the first place and where my discussions come from. Except for one (Security) those IMO were improperly imposed on the States and that one (Security) was agreed to by the founders."

whether or not a service is considered federally provided or state provided it can still be considered socialist. if the state taxes the citizens to provide firefighters then it is still socialist. if the federal government taxes the us for firefighters it would still be socialistic service in nature.

 

State/federal properties have no bearing in if a service is considered socialist.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Jackson33,

However, i do agree with you that most, laws passed by the government are incredibly shady and do not reflect properly on the constitution and bill of rights. in fact i would go so far as to say that no laws created or passed in the present come anywhere close to being lawful in accordance with the constitution. imo

But i did notice, last time i went through looking at the constitution and its amendments, that there is a shady little amendment stating that the federal government can do whatever the hell it wants.

[Pangloss]

Coercion, otherwise known as blackmail IS NOT legal and not authorized in the Constitution, the exact opposite is....there is no correct or legal way to coerce.

 

Passing a law is not an act of coercion. Amending the constitution is not an act of coercion. Giving the states money and then telling them to do something specific (or lose the money) is not an act of coercion (that's a semantic and I understand Mr Skeptic's point, but it's their money and the Constitution does not address that issue; as Skeptic points out they can choose not to accept it).

 

And in the end it's pretty much moot because regardless of what the state does or doesn't want, the final arbiter is the federal. This is as intended, and was firmly established by the civil war. Let's face it -- if the federal government decides that all grass needs to be green, and the supreme court decides that that's constitutional, Kentucky cannot make theirs blue. That's pretty much all there is to it.

 

And you're just not going to get another civil war to fight that one out. You may think you have a popular movement behind you, but it's going to evaporate the moment the budget is balanced. What they're really demanding is a restoration of sane BALANCE. Not a switch from one extreme to another.

 

 

I'll also disagree that people with different viewpoints should remain silent

 

I didn't say that.

 

 

probably half the people over 18 in this Country today, honestly believe it's the Federal responsibility to provide from 10 to all things classified essential and if fact none are

 

Maybe so. So let's not make things worse by telling them that they live in a pure-free-market society when they never have, were never intended to, and never will.

 

 

if projected deficits are in fact 22T$, with additional obligation of anywhere from 40-80T$, by 2020, there won't be ANY services available.

 

I agree. But that's a reason to balance the budget, not eliminate services. You're leveraging a financial need to attack an unrelated ideological desire. But hey, you can fool some of the people some of the time.

 

 

Thanks for your comments and the platform to spin from

 

Any time, man.

[The Bear's Key]

I may be guilty of trying to explain the unexplainable

That could be a problem. No one can be on the same page if what everyone's talking about can't be defined or lacks a reasonable standard to perceive it by.

 

 

Well, I don't think that the US military really qualifies as a Socialist program as it is a consumer of capitalist products. If the Military were running the industry that built the planes it used then yes, it would be socialist. But since it doesn't own the means of production, and is instead a consumer of it, it can't be claimed to be socialist.

In that case, universal healthcare by a public option isn't socialism, as the government doesn't run the industry that builds medicine, equipment, pills, lab coats, all that fun stuff.

 

NASA, likewise, is not socialist as it's products and built by private industry...

Ditto on the healthcare point.

 

Also, I don't think it's fair to label NASA as "few returns on investment" as NASA drove a large portion of the technology industry for decades, and few would question the value in pushing that envelope now, even when when the moon was the only readily available goal then.

Few returns for *private* investment. I wasn't talking about benefits to society, just $$ returns for a business to have explored the moon or space before government did.

 

 

If I wish being agreed with, there are plenty of forums to visit, blogs or political gatherings, where my comments would be and have been accepted nearly 100%.

Just to make sure you do realize it's no different for any of us.

 

 

But you are redefining "Socialist" to suit your argument. The military is a service, to be sure, but it is not a SOCIALIST service because it owns no industry and produces no materials.

The healthcare point again

 

But it is not a product in an economic sense, it is a service. Not only is it a service, it is a service that derives all of it's effectiveness through capitalist purchases.

 

Plus, the US government doesn't build the tanks and planes and ships either.

 

So again, absent the materials used by the military you are left with the people... who can't be owned.

Dittoland.

 

 

95% of the proposed programs (literally hundreds in the HC Bill), be it Health Care, Welfare, Cap and Trade or any other distribution of wealth are IMO, unconstitutional

 

Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

...to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and

general welfare

of the United States

........

To make all laws which shall be

necessary and proper

for carrying into execution the foregoing powers

See, there's a loophole.

 

We don't need its removal, but some manner to assure us of ways that government can't abuse that loophole -- i.e. close it to abuses.

 

 

Pangloss; Coercion, otherwise known as blackmail IS NOT legal and not authorized in the Constitution, the exact opposite is....there is no correct or legal way to coerce.

Isn't blackmail hidden, not in open view? I agree that it'd be a shitty way to run things, but you could provide more specifics of what you're referring to also. Seems both parties are guilty of it.

 

It's up to States, what are considered safety laws (thousands of other issues) and can very to extremes. NY for instance has 25 or so seat belt laws, where in New Hampshire there are no laws covering anyone over the age of 18. Fines are just as extreme. Speed laws today, vehicle condititon (Safety Stickers) and all fines or class for infractions (misdemeanor/felony) can be extreme. Driving 80MPH in Texas, on certain roads is legal, as in Montana. On and on, and I won't bore you with how different Family/Estate Laws varies. Point we are 50 separate, sovereign and independent States with certain guaranteed rights, that are being ignored.

Notice something? Everything you mention is for dangers people know about (not hidden), generally they'll be self-inflicted -- affecting mostly them. It's an issue or responsibility for the state or lower government, and even that part's sketchy. But when citizens in danger by industry/others aren't helped by their local governments, it's when the Federal government steps nationally in to enforce and guarantee our rights.

 

Could be why abusers of industry love the idea of "small government". The industry's likely often more powerful than a local government.

[jackson33]

TBK;

Just to make sure you do realize it's no different for any of us. [/Quote]

 

In context, that statement was to enforce my desire to post, knowing it would be contested, rarely will I post anyplace, simply to agree with other's that I agree with.

 

 

Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

...to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

........

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers

See, there's a loophole.

 

We don't need its removal, but some manner to assure us of ways that government can't abuse that loophole -- i.e. close it to abuses. [/Quote]

 

Good point and one I've addressed a few hundred times. Note, that was written 223 years ago, yet interpreted to your definition (in part), in recent years. It would be my opinion, it's no loophole, rather a confirmation of the preamble, to the promotion of conditions for the societies welfare, NOT grant it. "Tranquility" the word most often used by the founders, placid or peaceful condition for the society to live under.

 

Additionally, when the Constitution was being drafted or for that matter any documents of that day, the States were very concerned about any central authority, having just rid themselves of one, the King of England.

 

Then, once again I'll mention the general misunderstanding, of folks here or in the general public, that it's the Federal Governments reasonability to provide (opposed to promote and a big difference in 1789) an increasing level of essentials. Think about what's going on today; We have a Harvard graduate in "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" with a requirement in American History study, promoting social programs, never intended. He knows, I know and you probably know, once accepted abuses, for the good of some at the cost to others is accepted as being good for the collective, it set precedence or if you prefer abuse changes its level. (ref. "close it to abuses")

 

Zolar quote;

But i did notice, last time i went through looking at the constitution and its amendments, that there is a shady little amendment stating that the federal government can do whatever the hell it wants. [/Quote]

 

Zolar, this pretty well follows TBK comments; Your correct to a point; Usually first in the House, they can legislate anything they want and showing how even today, with more behind the scenes discussion over HC (It's Constitutional, not an amendment, giving that authority). In fact 90+% of House legislation, never reaches the Senate Floor, much less the Presidents desk. If you read through the Constitution once again, you'll find some pretty good remedies to over power any legislation, under the checks and balances provided, almost never used, aside from the election process. I'll also remind you that the Supreme Court, if a case qualifies for hearing, can overturn any legislation, deemed unconstitutional. It's pretty rare, when we have had one party rule, in the House, Senate and Executive all at one time (one party rule, sound familiar?), then with commanding majorities.

 

For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss: this from the above site, followed up by the following....

 

For this reason, Congress has often avoided adoption of completely nationalized programs by one of two devices. In the first, Congress creates a delivery system for federal programs in which the national government encourages local implementation of a federal program by providing significant matching funds.....

 

The second method of encouraging states to implement federal programs is described in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). In this form, the Congress states that it will take over the regulation of an activity at the national level, unless the State itself implements its own program of regulation meeting minimum federal standards. Here, the motivation for State compliance is that absent state regulation, the state loses power over the regulated area entirely. In New York v. United States, the court explained:[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_federalism

 

Noun 1. coercion - the act of compelling by force of authority

terror - the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons); "he used terror to make them confess"

enforcement - the act of enforcing; ensuring observance of or obedience to [/Quote]

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coercion

 

 

States (the people), were originally intended to control the Federal Government (Constitution and Bill of Rights), by virtue of authority are to me, now being controlled by the Federal, to some degree going back 45 years with any measurable concern. What morally, ethically or in fact legally about the issues are not material. That is, it would be morally correct for States to accept Federal Assistance to provide for it's poor, but not legal to offer that aid with ANY requirements. To emphasize this, it's the peoples money to begin with, being used for the assistance. If I take money from you to begin with, you have the legal right to tell me what that money can be used for, but if I return that money I have no right to tell you what you can do with it. I forget the legal term....

 

And you're just not going to get another civil war to fight that one out. You may think you have a popular movement behind you, but it's going to evaporate the moment the budget is balanced. What they're really demanding is a restoration of sane BALANCE. Not a switch from one extreme to another.[/Quote]

 

Well, I'm not sure there is a popular 'movement' behind me or do I advocate any violence (if insinuated) and would oppose succession of States from the Union (Texas, Alaska or Hawaii having such movements).

 

I don't care which party is elected in any future election, the budget CANNOT be balanced for at least ten years, possible never again, without society as known, being hurt. I'll add it's only enhanced by this administration, not brought on by them.

 

Maybe so. So let's not make things worse by telling them that they live in a pure-free-market society when they never have, were never intended to, and never will. [/Quote]

 

Oh yes it is possible, to return to a free market Capitalist Society. I'd bet 30 States today operate very much this way, short of Federal involvement and business has been moving to these States for years. NY and California legislatures have been driving business and people out of their States for years and I don't know many more free States than Wyoming, Montana or Alaska to do business in. N/S Dakota are in a oil boom today, where in many States you can't even get a permit to look for oil.

[toastywombel]

Jackson33, if you are arguing that the constitution has no ability to be added upon, in the cases of general welfare for the public? Or that it limits the federal governments power to what is listed on the constitution. If so, how does it seem reasonable to you that we follow a document written 200 years ago, by men who have only a fraction of the knowledge all of us have today.

 

I mean look at the 2nd amendment for example, sure citizens have the right to bear arms, but back in the 1700's there were no automatic machine guns? That was not taken into consideration by the founders, it couldn't of been.

 

My point is, we cannot run an effective, modern government, based on strict rules that were devised over 200 years ago, its just not practical in an ever-changing world.

[Zolar V]

 

"Zolar, this pretty well follows TBK comments; Your correct to a point; Usually first in the House, they can legislate anything they want and showing how even today, with more behind the scenes discussion over HC (It's Constitutional, not an amendment, giving that authority). In fact 90+% of House legislation, never reaches the Senate Floor, much less the Presidents desk. If you read through the Constitution once again, you'll find some pretty good remedies to over power any legislation, under the checks and balances provided, almost never used, aside from the election process. I'll also remind you that the Supreme Court, if a case qualifies for hearing, can overturn any legislation, deemed unconstitutional. It's pretty rare, when we have had one party rule, in the House, Senate and Executive all at one time (one party rule, sound familiar?), then with commanding majorities. "

well it should sound familiar, because that was what i was referring to.

 

 

 

 

Then' date=' once again I'll mention the general misunderstanding, of folks here or in the general public, that it's the Federal Governments reasonability to provide (opposed to promote and a big difference in 1789) an increasing level of essentials. Think about what's going on today; We have a Harvard graduate in "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" with a requirement in American History study, promoting social programs, never intended. He knows, I know and you probably know, once accepted abuses, for the good of some at the cost to others is accepted as being good for the collective, it set precedence or if you prefer abuse changes its level. (ref. "close it to abuses")

 

 

States (the people), were originally intended to control the Federal Government (Constitution and Bill of Rights), by virtue of authority are to me, now being controlled by the Federal, to some degree going back 45 years with any measurable concern. What morally, ethically or in fact legally about the issues are not material. That is, it would be morally correct for States to accept Federal Assistance to provide for it's poor, but not legal to offer that aid with ANY requirements. To emphasize this, it's the peoples money to begin with, being used for the assistance. If I take money from you to begin with, you have the legal right to tell me what that money can be used for, but if I return that money I have no right to tell you what you can do with it. I forget the legal term....

 

 

Oh yes it is possible, to return to a free market Capitalist Society. I'd bet 30 States today operate very much this way, short of Federal involvement and business has been moving to these States for years. NY and California legislatures have been driving business and people out of their States for years and I don't know many more free States than Wyoming, Montana or Alaska to do business in. N/S Dakota are in a oil boom today, where in many States you can't even get a permit to look for oil.[/quote']

 

You know what would be a really interesting and wonderfully non-corrupted government that would be able to accomplish the proper goals and presets for modern society?

Communism.

Even in communism you could have capitalism, i already described how this would work, but i will reiterate here.

You could have capitalism within a communist society by having the society decide (via vote of course) whether or not to purchase/trade goods from their society to another society for the benefit of the communist society.

 

With thus you can still have capitalism at a layer of society even though in the lesser layers of society they are communist.

[Pangloss]

not legal to offer that aid with ANY requirements

 

I don't see any basis for this in any of the sources you've cited. You've not indicated a constitutional clause, law, supreme court decision or even a statement by the framers that says that the federal government cannot give money to a state government with conditions attached.

 

 

I don't care which party is elected in any future election, the budget CANNOT be balanced for at least ten years, possible never again, without society as known, being hurt. I'll add it's only enhanced by this administration, not brought on by them.

 

I don't know about "never again", but I agree with this in general. It's a real problem, made more so by the fact that we don't seem to be very good at solving this kind of problem.

 

We never have before -- it's always seemed to me that the Clinton administration stumbled into it thanks to unexpected income often connected to the dot-com bubble, rather than any sort of financial or budgetary wizardry. I know some disagree on this point, of course.

[jackson33]

Jackson33, if you are arguing that the constitution has no ability to be added upon, in the cases of general welfare for the public? [/Quote]

 

toasty; It would be my opinion, specifically the US Government (Union of 50 States), has neither the inherent or Constitutional authority to impose 'social justice' on all States. That in our system for governance, these issues were delegated to the States if seen important with in their sovereign society.

 

However, if the pre-set number of those separate entities, for any reason decide to alter or change the meaning of the Constitution, (provide, instead of promote) and allow that Constitution to remain viable, they MUST follow the agreed to method, process for amending, opposed to simple legislation or the use of judicial interpreting.

 

If so, how does it seem reasonable to you that we follow a document written 200 years ago, by men who have only a fraction of the knowledge all of us have today.[/Quote]

 

The US Constitution is a composite of ideas and systems for government, most of which were around long before our Constitution and/or will be integral parts of any free societies systems, probably until the end of humanity. Even the Greeks form of Democracy (think 1400BC), the British Magna Carta (1500's) and the 200 years of early American Colonial Systems, were used.

 

I mean look at the 2nd amendment for example, sure citizens have the right to bear arms, but back in the 1700's there were no automatic machine guns? That was not taken into consideration by the founders, it couldn't of been. [/Quote]

 

I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision or State Law, saying citizens are allowed to keep and bare 'Sherman Tanks' or 'nuclear weapons. The right to bare arms today, is pretty much all that exist today, that was in 1789.

 

well it should sound familiar, because that was what i was referring to.[/Quote]

 

Zolar; Good, then you understand the system being used by the Executive/Legislature, with reference to the HC Bill, is not constitutional...checks and balances that are available will have to come in after the fact (if passed) and will work. Many, if not most or all involved, will be found unconstitutional. By the way, I heard yesterday 34 States are now considering legal action, can't afford the mandates being proposed and will fight to have many items overturned......Just what this country needs, in the current economic environment.

 

With thus you can still have capitalism at a layer of society even though in the lesser layers of society they are communist. [/Quote]

Not at the Federal Level; Several States in the US do employ many aspects of Socialism with in their Democratic systems, and it's NOT working. So long as Capitalism can move, business simply moves to more accommodating States, or out of the Country. California, by use of Taxing, has made doing business so expensive or having wealth, that people and business leaving, has created a serious problem, just as in NY.

 

A good example of Communism in the US, though a stretch, is the virtual take over of GM. Do you think the Japanese Government, the people of Japan or many investors from abroad that are invested in the US really think, all this attention on 'Toyota' recalls, IS NOT contrived?

 

 

Pangloss;

I don't see any basis for this in any of the sources you've cited. [/Quote]

 

Please don't get started on this style of debating, it's unbecoming of you.

 

You've not indicated a constitutional clause, law, supreme court decision or even a statement by the framers that says that the federal government cannot give money to a state government with conditions attached. [/Quote]

 

The Constitution set up a census, to count the number of people in each State to keep representation to the House, proportionate to each other. Later it was used to determine amounts of funding allocated each State for any appropriations. As for conditions placed on funding, it depends on the condition and as described in several post, these conditions were simple coercion to get States to conform to National Policy and ILLEGAL. For the record, NH, which never has mandated 'seat belts' for adults, under the threat of losing 10% of some funding, never lost that funding.

 

I don't know about "never again", but I agree with this in general. It's a real problem, made more so by the fact that we don't seem to be very good at solving this kind of problem. [/Quote]

 

If the statistics are correct and obligations of the US Government are someplace over 40T$, that are not counted as National Debt (should be), you would need to expand GDP 8% (figures double each 10 years) per year for 40 years, with out inflation or an increase in interest on that debt. That is GDP would be 240T$ in 2050, the then projected ND somewhere around 150T$. The GDP actually did this between 1984 and 2008, but with near off setting inflation. That scenario into the future, is not possible, IMO.

 

On solving problems; It's really not that complicated, CUT GOVERMENY COST.

 

We never have before -- it's always seemed to me that the Clinton administration stumbled into it thanks to unexpected income often connected to the dot-com bubble, rather than any sort of financial or budgetary wizardry. I know some disagree on this point, of course. [/Quote]

 

Well, I do think there was some "wizardry" involved, but by someone you wouldn't expect me to give credit. Robert Rubin, served as assistant to the President (Clinton) for Economic Affairs, from the day of Inauguration, to 1995, when he became the Secretary of the Treasury and I credit him for Clinton's policy and being acceptable to the Republican Congress to WORK with (after 1994). It's been my long held theory, he bailed in July of 1999, knowing of the pending bubble burst and it wasn't that hard to predict. The Y2K forecast, launched hundreds of small Companies and over valued absolutely every other tech company, creating the tech bubble burst. I bailed on tech stocks late in 1999, Jim Crammer (CNBC Mad Money) shorted every tech stock making billions, for his Hedge fund and himself and if you check out the chart below, you can see the reasoning, behind my comments. Of yes, most all those Y2K Companies folded and a good share of the over valued, as did the investor when the NASDAQ dropped 75% of its value (March 2000 to August 2002), IMO could have resulted in today's problems if it had not been for the TAX CUTS.

 

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=%24COMPX&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&C9=2&ComparisonsForm=1&CE=0&DisplayForm=1&D4=1&D5=0&D3=0&ViewType=0&CP=0&PT=11

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin

[Pangloss]

For the record, NH, which never has mandated 'seat belts' for adults, under the threat of losing 10% of some funding, never lost that funding.

 

So where's the problem? They got their money, they kept their "freedom", and if they want to ignore the fact that highway deaths are the lowest they've been since 1954 well, hey, more power to them, right?

 

Just not seeing a usurpation of state's rights here, either on "coercion" or anything else.

[toastywombel]

However, if the pre-set number of those separate entities, for any reason decide to alter or change the meaning of the Constitution, (provide, instead of promote) and allow that Constitution to remain viable, they MUST follow the agreed to method, process for amending, opposed to simple legislation or the use of judicial interpreting.

 

The US Constitution is a composite of ideas and systems for government, most of which were around long before our Constitution and/or will be integral parts of any free societies systems, probably until the end of humanity. Even the Greeks form of Democracy (think 1400BC), the British Magna Carta (1500's) and the 200 years of early American Colonial Systems, were used.

 

I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision or State Law, saying citizens are allowed to keep and bare 'Sherman Tanks' or 'nuclear weapons. The right to bare arms today, is pretty much all that exist today, that was in 1789.

 

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

Wikipedia definition of general welfare,

 

"A General Welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions, and in some cases in charters and statutes, which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder (also known as the police power). Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document."

 

Furthermore, the following is from here http://law.jrank.org/pages/7116/General-Welfare.html

 

"United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

 

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress."

 

So why would the constitution have to be changed, when we have ruling like this. According to this Supreme Court decision, the federal government's limitations are left to the desecration of congress. Furthermore, I think it is hard to prove that there is no reasonable possibility that universal healthcare provides for the general welfare of the public.

[Mr Skeptic]

As for conditions placed on funding, it depends on the condition and as described in several post, these conditions were simple coercion to get States to conform to National Policy and ILLEGAL.

 

I'm afraid that it is actually technically completely legal, even if against the spirit of the constitution. I'm not really sure how you could go about making it illegal.

 

But we're getting way off topic by now. Perhaps this could be moved to its own thread?

[jackson33]

So why would the constitution have to be changed, when we have ruling like this. According to this Supreme Court decision, the federal government's limitations are left to the desecration of congress. Furthermore, I think it is hard to prove that there is no reasonable possibility that universal healthcare provides for the general welfare of the public.[/Quote]

 

toasty; Your talking 'Legal Interpretation', which is anything but definitive. Even my personal feelings for 'Constitutional Amendment' has it's flaws under checks and balances, like in 'Prohibition', and yes all this is possible under the Constitution, but with in the Amendment Process (Constitutional change).

 

On 'Butler' I'll refer you to a follow up case;

 

With Butler as precedent, the Supreme Court's interest in determining whether congressional spending promotes the general welfare has withered. In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), the Court reviewed legislation allowing the secretary of transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to twenty-one. In holding that the statute was a valid use of congressional spending power, the Court in Dole questioned "whether 'general welfare' is a judicially enforceable restriction at all."[/Quote]

 

Highlight for Pangloss...To answer a previous question. That is making the threat (coercion), could probably not be inforced...

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

 

As for Health Care, if accepted as a "right", would be, as it's being portrayed, then so would, food, housing, jobs or not working, or any of the thousands of needs any American as daily access to today, (important) to the level of any other person. If John drives a 100,000$ car, lives in a million dollar home, earns a million dollars a year doing nothing or has access to the best medical facilities in the Country, how could anybody be denied the same things. It may not SEEM right, but if children are born to poor folks, middle class or the richest, with the same medical problem, they simply are not going to get equal treatments and it's not possible to provide. Think about this fairness thing, for people around the world, probably 5 billion or so that don't have what the poorest of the poor do in the US or most the Industrialized world. Where does being fair, end....Being an American, is having the opportunity, not free access, IMO.

 

Pangloss/toasty; Your both indirectly are condoning coercion as a means to promote a 'General Welfare' as an equal term of providing, beyond the limits granted the Federal, by the States. What I'm trying to indicate is that promotion of something, was never meant to mean providing (as in DEFENCE or more loosely Security) or the sentence would have read 'and the general welfare', not to mention the shift from 'common' to general. I'd also suggest the founders, when agreeing to "Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" were NOT indicating the Federal Government, rather the States or as often mention after States, the people.

 

The 'Preamble' is vital to understanding those intention, being long accepted as the "WHY" or reason for drafting the document, for the operation of a Government, that could sufficiently maintain tranquility between 13 or more independent States. Remember there motives for the 'Declaration of Independence', the war itself and the Constitution, was driven by the lack of liberty in another already existing Union, the British Empire, "More perfect Union".

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/Quote]

 

 

Skeptic; In considering what programs are socialists, there is a distinction between Federal and States. That is there is no reason, why a State can't promote and enforce a program for UHC, or any deemed social program (most were your suggestions) but the Federal is limited. I'll apologize, if you feel my post are taking your thread off target, however, at your request (another thread) brought this over from there. I will drop out of you thread, with apologies...

 

I'm afraid that it is actually technically completely legal, even if against the spirit of the constitution. I'm not really sure how you could go about making it illegal. [/Quote]

 

For anything to be legal, in this case 'coercion by the Federal, it must be enforceable. Any threat, not enforceable, IMO is illegal. No party can enter into an illegal contract, the reason for my opinion.

Edited March 13, 2010 by jackson33

[toastywombel]

toasty; Your talking 'Legal Interpretation', which is anything but definitive. Even my personal feelings for 'Constitutional Amendment' has it's flaws under checks and balances, like in 'Prohibition', and yes all this is possible under the Constitution, but with in the Amendment Process (Constitutional change).

 

On 'Butler' I'll refer you to a follow up case;

 

With Butler as precedent, the Supreme Court's interest in determining whether congressional spending promotes the general welfare has withered. In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), the Court reviewed legislation allowing the secretary of transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to twenty-one. In holding that the statute was a valid use of congressional spending power, the Court in Dole questioned "whether 'general welfare' is a judicially enforceable restriction at all."[/Quote]

 

Highlight for Pangloss...To answer a previous question. That is making the threat (coercion), could probably not be inforced...

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

 

As for Health Care, if accepted as a "right", would be, as it's being portrayed, then so would, food, housing, jobs or not working, or any of the thousands of needs any American as daily access to today, (important) to the level of any other person. If John drives a 100,000$ car, lives in a million dollar home, earns a million dollars a year doing nothing or has access to the best medical facilities in the Country, how could anybody be denied the same things. It may not SEEM right, but if children are born to poor folks, middle class or the richest, with the same medical problem, they simply are not going to get equal treatments and it's not possible to provide. Think about this fairness thing, for people around the world, probably 5 billion or so that don't have what the poorest of the poor do in the US or most the Industrialized world. Where does being fair, end....Being an American, is having the opportunity, not free access, IMO.

 

Pangloss/toasty; Your both indirectly are condoning coercion as a means to promote a 'General Welfare' as an equal term of providing, beyond the limits granted the Federal, by the States. What I'm trying to indicate is that promotion of something, was never meant to mean providing (as in DEFENCE or more loosely Security) or the sentence would have read 'and the general welfare', not to mention the shift from 'common' to general. I'd also suggest the founders, when agreeing to "Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" were NOT indicating the Federal Government, rather the States or as often mention after States, the people.

 

The 'Preamble' is vital to understanding those intention, being long accepted as the "WHY" or reason for drafting the document, for the operation of a Government, that could sufficiently maintain tranquility between 13 or more independent States. Remember there motives for the 'Declaration of Independence', the war itself and the Constitution, was driven by the lack of liberty in another already existing Union, the British Empire, "More perfect Union".

 

 

 

 

Skeptic; In considering what programs are socialists, there is a distinction between Federal and States. That is there is no reason, why a State can't promote and enforce a program for UHC, or any deemed social program (most were your suggestions) but the Federal is limited. I'll apologize, if you feel my post are taking your thread off target, however, at your request (another thread) brought this over from there. I will drop out of you thread, with apologies...

 

 

 

For anything to be legal, in this case 'coercion by the Federal, it must be enforceable. Any threat, not enforceable, IMO is illegal. No party can enter into an illegal contract, the reason for my opinion.

 

Whoa Whoa don't change topic so quickly my friend. You said this,

 

"However, if the pre-set number of those separate entities, for any reason decide to alter or change the meaning of the Constitution, (provide, instead of promote) and allow that Constitution to remain viable, they MUST follow the agreed to method, process for amending, opposed to simple legislation or the use of judicial interpreting."

 

So you insisted that they (I would guess that means politicians on the left end of the spectrum) need to follow the necessary steps to amend the constitution instead of just passing simple legislation. That was your argument. I then proved that your argument is not legally sound citing the Butler case. And even though the specific government program was ruled unconstitutional, the courts left future decisions of what falls under general welfare to congress. Therefore, it is perfectly legal for congress to pass simple legislation that has a possibility of falling under the 'general welfare category'.

 

Furthermore, if you are arguing if something is illegal, you cannot then say, well what your citing is just legal interpretation, when I show that it is in-fact perfectly legal. It seems like you want to argue from a standpoint of 'jackson33's government model'. If we are discussing the legality of things though, we must go by the current government model.

 

On a side note, isn't it interesting that no conservative lawyers have gotten a case about medi-care or medi-caid, which is practically socialized healthcare for older, disabled, and children all the way to the supreme court with a rule that it is unconstitutional.

 

As for the slippery slope argument. For starters, I do not attest to this argument, and you know why? Because nearly half of the voting electorate in the United States tends towards your type of thinking. That is why it wont be a slippery slope, activism on the right. It is good to keep in mind that the democrats are anything but efficient at passing legislation. Also when you said,

 

"Care, if accepted as a "right", would be, as it's being portrayed, then so would, food, housing, jobs or not working"

 

Hmm. how does the last one fit. I can support government assistance for some food (which is already done), housing (eehh I think shelters and salvation army do alright), jobs (maybe to help people find jobs or stimulate job growth). But not working? I don't know anyone who supports government money to go to people not working. Why because I want affordable socialized healthcare, and we may pass healthcare legislation that will do that are we on the left categorized as communists.

 

Also you said, something to the effect, that joe millionaire gets great healthcare, and even though its not fair that poor people don't get it, it would to hard to give that quality of care to everyone. My question is why? And I think that is a big question of everyone on the left, why not? We may never be able to achieve total fairness, but why not always try to do it, as far as healthcare is concerned?

[Pangloss]

In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), the Court reviewed legislation allowing the secretary of transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to twenty-one. In holding that the statute was a valid use of congressional spending power, the Court in Dole questioned "whether 'general welfare' is a judicially enforceable restriction at all."[/Quote]

 

Highlight for Pangloss...To answer a previous question. That is making the threat (coercion), could probably not be inforced...

 

That ruling allows the federal government to attach conditions to federal dollars. It undermines your claim. In fact it doesn't even say "federal funding is okay but not for the purpose of 'general welfare'". In fact it says exactly the opposite -- it says that federal funding MUST support the general welfare. It then goes on to explain exactly why the law doesn't run afoul of the 10th amendment:

 

Rehnquist said that Congress's conditional spending is subject to four restrictions:

 

1. The condition must promote "the general welfare;"

2. The condition must be unambiguous;

3. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;" and

4. Other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.

 

The first three restrictions, Rehnquist noted, are uncontested. This leaves the fourth restriction. The Tenth Amendment bars federal regulation of the States, and it has been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit federal regulation of the drinking age. Nevertheless, the Congressional condition of highway funds is merely a "pressure" on the State to comply, not a "compulsion" to do so, because the State's failure to meet the condition deprives it of only 5% of the highway funds it may obtain. Therefore, Congress has not run afoul of the Tenth or Twenty-First Amendments.

 

This is from the Wikipedia, but it's a well-sourced article, so feel free to chase the links down if you want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_dakota_v_dole