Ah, we live in interesting times.
Once again the battle has been joined by traditionalists, and Progressives.
Progressive beliefs are centered on the idea that the Founding documents of the United States are flawed, and unable to keep up with the vast changes in the world.
Woodrow Wilson: the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside ( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law
And Progressives felt that the checks and balances contained in the Constitution prevented them from efficiently carrying out the changes they found as necessary, and, therefore, a consolidation and centralization of power would be more efficient.
a.Federalist #10 Madison agreed that factions can divide government but came to the opposite conclusion: the more factions, the better. In Madison's view more factions would make it less likely that any one party or coalition of parties would be able to gain control of government and invade the rights of other citizens. The system of checks and balances contained in the Constitution was part of Madison's plan for frustrating factions.
Number Federalist (10) - Federalist, Number 10
b. Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. Beware of government by experts and bureaucrats.
c. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay What is Progress? Wilson compares the Founders ideas of checks and balances as the construction of a government as one would construct a simple machine, based on immutable laws as in Newtonian physics, while he contends that government should conform to Darwin. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.
Today, a number of states are resisting this centralization by bringing suit against a federal government which is placing demands, in the form of healthcare mandates, on them.
This contest is not new, and in its modern form, the battle will, once again pit the two philosophies against each other.
Will the Supreme Court find for the Progressives, and validate the Obama Healthcare Bill, or will it support the challenges by the states.
Two views:
a. "The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race and thus prohibits inactivity," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, noting that law relied upon the Commerce Clause. "The Supreme Court has said that Congress can regulate economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Buying or refusing to buy insurance is economic activity. The effect on the economy is enormous. Mr. Chemerinsky cited cases in which the high court upheld Congress' authority to regulate the amount of wheat that farmers grow for their own home consumption or prohibit the cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
"If that fits within the commerce power, surely the health industry does," he said.
" Supreme Court may weigh coverage mandate - Washington Times
b. Mr. Rivkin, who served in various legal capacities for the Reagan administration and the George H.W. Bush administration, strongly disagreed. If that were the case, he argued, there would be no limits to the government's power as the Founding Fathers intended. He said the cases cited by Mr. Chemerinsky involve the cultivating of commodities and therefore clearly economic activities, unlike the refusal to purchase health insurance.Ibid
c. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, [Judge Andrew] Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.
"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done. Newsmax - Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare
Once again the battle has been joined by traditionalists, and Progressives.
Progressive beliefs are centered on the idea that the Founding documents of the United States are flawed, and unable to keep up with the vast changes in the world.
Woodrow Wilson: the Constitution could be stripped off and thrown aside ( Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law Project MUSE Journals Journal of Policy History Volume 20, Number 1, 2008 Project MUSE - Journal of Policy History - Woodrow Wilson and a World Governed by Evolving Law
And Progressives felt that the checks and balances contained in the Constitution prevented them from efficiently carrying out the changes they found as necessary, and, therefore, a consolidation and centralization of power would be more efficient.
a.Federalist #10 Madison agreed that factions can divide government but came to the opposite conclusion: the more factions, the better. In Madison's view more factions would make it less likely that any one party or coalition of parties would be able to gain control of government and invade the rights of other citizens. The system of checks and balances contained in the Constitution was part of Madison's plan for frustrating factions.
Number Federalist (10) - Federalist, Number 10
b. Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. Beware of government by experts and bureaucrats.
c. Woodrow Wilson, in his essay What is Progress? Wilson compares the Founders ideas of checks and balances as the construction of a government as one would construct a simple machine, based on immutable laws as in Newtonian physics, while he contends that government should conform to Darwin. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.
Today, a number of states are resisting this centralization by bringing suit against a federal government which is placing demands, in the form of healthcare mandates, on them.
This contest is not new, and in its modern form, the battle will, once again pit the two philosophies against each other.
Will the Supreme Court find for the Progressives, and validate the Obama Healthcare Bill, or will it support the challenges by the states.
Two views:
a. "The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race and thus prohibits inactivity," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, noting that law relied upon the Commerce Clause. "The Supreme Court has said that Congress can regulate economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Buying or refusing to buy insurance is economic activity. The effect on the economy is enormous. Mr. Chemerinsky cited cases in which the high court upheld Congress' authority to regulate the amount of wheat that farmers grow for their own home consumption or prohibit the cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
"If that fits within the commerce power, surely the health industry does," he said.
" Supreme Court may weigh coverage mandate - Washington Times
b. Mr. Rivkin, who served in various legal capacities for the Reagan administration and the George H.W. Bush administration, strongly disagreed. If that were the case, he argued, there would be no limits to the government's power as the Founding Fathers intended. He said the cases cited by Mr. Chemerinsky involve the cultivating of commodities and therefore clearly economic activities, unlike the refusal to purchase health insurance.Ibid
c. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, [Judge Andrew] Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.
"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done. Newsmax - Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare
