18 powers?
I can count 3:
1. mucking up the judicial branch
2. mucking up the legislative branch
3. mucking up the executive branch
Multiplied by 3 more levels of
1. local
2. state
3. federal
so that makes 9.
I guess if you multiply those 9 times 2,
for both major parties skewing and screwing up govt
by inserting their agenda, then you get 18!
Am I close?
general welfare.... gives broad latitude
commerce clause... gives broad latitude
the only ones mucking up the judicial branch are theocrats.
Dear
jillian:
"general welfare" does not give federal govt specific authorities in specific areas.
That requires Constitutional amendment to authorize federal govt to create new jurisdictions.
Otherwise, this does not represent the consent of the people and states
to suddenly dictate from the federal level to create new mandates and micromanagement,
such as over health care, as is still argued as beyond Constitutional limits of govt.
Examples of how such interpretation of "general welfare" is unconstitutional
to "justify" Congress/Federal Govt mandating regulations on how people pay for health insurance
1. The Constitution ALSO guarantees IN WRITING in the Bill of Rights
against "depriving citizens of liberty without due process" to prove
THOSE PERSONS have committed a crime for which the law provides a prescribed penalty.
The ACA mandates already DEPRIVED citizens of liberty by requiring
an added TAX and only exempting those who BOUGHT govt regulated insurance.
Thus, freedom of choice was deprived and penalized by this law.
It did not require citizens to be PROVEN to have abused public resources
without paying BEFORE being punished and forced to buy insurance.
It required this IN ADVANCE and against the free choice of individuals
to pay for health care OTHER WAYS besides govt approved insurance.
So regarding "general welfare" it is clear and common sense
that Govt CANNOT "promote the general welfare" in ways
that VIOLATE KEY PROVISIONS elsewhere in the same Constitution.
2. If this change in federal govt jurisdiction were truly representing the
public and will of the people, then the agreement to interpret and give
govt this expanded power over health care could be PASSED by AMENDMENT.
Clearly, half the nation opposed this because of beliefs in free choice of
health care belonging to individuals and NOT to federal govt controls.
This requirement to pass a Constitutional Amendment through the States
CHECKS and ENSURES that federal govt changes REFLECT the
consent of the people, and prevents "taxation without representation"
So bypassing this step was an ABUSE of federal power to dictate
against the will, consent and BELIEFS of the people affected.
jillian this type of interpretation and application of laws may
have represented and rung true with YOUR beliefs, so maybe
you saw it as proper and not a violation of Constitutional govt.
But for the other half of the nation whose beliefs were violated
either this usurping and overreaching abuse of authority
violated:
Constitutional principles and process directly
or
Constitutional BELIEFS if we don't all agree it violated process and limits on govt
So even if we DON'T AGREE if it was Constitutional or unconstitutional,
as people like you may believe it is lawful under "general welfare"
the fact that Constitutionalists have rights to our BELIEFS
and not to have this violated or discriminated against by govt,
then THAT was a violation on the level of BELIEFS.
I agree that for overreaching abuse of judicial power, yes, this is too easy and common
because of the unequal ability of judges and courts to abuse that capacity
and, intentionally or not, establish laws that are supposed to depend on legislation.
The judiciary is supposed to determine what is in keeping with laws or not,
and only the legislature is supposed to create or revise laws.
In the case of ACA, the law was passed as a public health bill
not a tax bill or it would have been struck down in Congress.
But then it was interpreted and upheld in Court as a tax bill,
not under the commerce or welfare clause. So the ACA
was neither authorized by Amendment through the States
to give federal govt this new capacity to begin with, nor was
it both passed by Congress and Courts under the same interpretation.
One interpretation was voted on by Congress
and a different one was upheld by Court.
If health care reform were to go through the proper Constitutional
process of representing the taxpayers affected by the terms and policies,
it would come out quite differently. Given the conflicting beliefs in either
managing health care through govt or absolutely NOT putting social
programs in the hands of govt, then to protect Constitutional equal
free exercise of both approaches or beliefs, it makes sense to me
that the fairest way is to allow taxpayers a choice of which plans to fund.
When plans represent the consent of the governed taxpayers affected,
they would freely support, vote for, fund and participate.
This wouldn't have to be forced on people through federal govt.
In general
jillian respecting the consent and free will/liberty of
the individual citizens is better for the "general welfare"
it is generally AGAINST the best interest of the public and integrity
of govt to abuse federal authority to FORCE laws mandates
or tax penalties on people by overriding their objections.
If you are going to pass laws, they should not punish or deprive
law abiding citizens, but specify the WRONGS for which the
penalties apply. In the case of ACA, all citizens were deprived
of liberty and freedom to choose without first proving which
people committed abuses that cost public resources or taxpayers.
