DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There are a lot of interpretations available, but the area that has the least should be in precisely what authority is being exercised. That is, the Constitution does not mention that Congress has the authority to purchase submarines, so the purchase of submarines is not allowed as the end unto itself. But, it is likely "necessary and proper" to purchase submarines under the authority of providing and maintaining a Navy.
Therein lies the "limiting" part of the Constitution.
I don’t see how it’s all that limited, though. “Necessary and proper” is a loophole large enough for an aircraft carrier (just to continue with your naval analogy).
It seems to me that the “limiting” part would be more a limitation on the President. If the Constitution didn’t say that Congress has the authority to provide and maintain an Army and Navy, does that mean the United States wouldn’t have an Army or Navy? Doubtful, since we already had both even before the Constitution was written and signed. But it does prevent the military from falling under total control of the President and the potential for dictatorship and abuse of power.
Although as a side note, it is interesting that whenever there’s talk of base closures and other cutbacks in the military, Congress seems to think more about the local economies of their own districts rather than what is “necessary and proper” from a military point of view. If there’s a large base or defense plant in a Representative’s district, he/she will fight to keep that base or defense plant in operation, even if the military says they don’t need it.
Did we have an Army and Navy before the Constitution? Sure. But, that was under the Articles of Confederation, too. I don't think we really had a set National government before the Articles, so the Army and Navy we had were not truly national. Since the Fed's were granted the authority to protect the USA (as one nation), the authority to have an Army and Navy was granted.
And, regarding the bases and the local economies: You're damn right they do. And, what's more, that's how they think about everything that comes up for cuts. It sickens me to see them do that shit.
quote:
quote:
quote:
One thing I keep in mind is that the Founding Fathers did not have access to the same kinds of technologies we have today, and "healthcare" back in those days might have been some guy who bled patients with leeches and got paid in whiskey. Medical care was a lot cheaper back then, so I'm sure the Founding Fathers would wonder why healthcare is so expensive these days, just as many of us do.
In any case, I don't think that the basic idea of the government providing healthcare would go against the Constitution any more than government-provided police and fire protection would go against the Constitution. I see healthcare as being analogous, so I never could understand why people readily accept police and fire protection from the government but not healthcare.
First of all, let's get something straight: there is no Federal police and fire protection for John or Jane Q. Public. State and local levels of government are not constrained as much by the Constitution as the Federal government. A State deciding to provide care for the members of the State is different, unless the State Constitution is written as the US Constitution was written and anything not in the State Constitution is not within the authority of the State.
There is Federal police and fire protection for those who may be on Federal land. Forest Rangers, the Marshals Service, the Secret Service, the FBI, the DEA, ATF, ICE/CBP/Border Patrol, etc., just to name a few Federal agencies with police powers. On any given day, I spot just as many Border Patrol vehicles (Federal cops) as I do local/state police vehicles. Federal cops are definitely out there, although it’s true that John Q. Public would more likely deal with local cops first (if such a need arises).
Those agencies are not like the police and fire forces in your local area, though. That's the point. When there's a housefire in Albuquerque, an alarm isn't sound and the Federal Fire Department doesn't show up. That doesn't happen. A guy's house gets broken into and it's not the Fed's that are responding to the 911 call.
quote:
If anything, state and local governments are more constrained by the U.S. Constitution, since all levels of government are bound to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. As an example, all Arizona state employees are required to sign a loyalty oath to preserve, protect, and defend both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. Also, I would note that the Arizona Constitution doesn’t specifically authorize the establishment of police or fire departments, yet we have them anyway.
Does the Arizona Constitution read as the US Constitution reads, where authorities are granted to it by the people of Arizona, and anything not listed is left to the People and/or more local forms of government? If not, then, it's not the same comparison.
quote:
As for healthcare, we have a program called AHCCCS (usually pronounced “access”), which gets most of its money from Medicare and Medicaid. I don’t think the State would be able to do it by itself without Federal dollars. (Ironically, the acronym stands for the "Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System." “Cost Containment” – what a joke.)
The State could do it without Federal dollars because it, too, has the authority to tax for it's programs. Whether it's a program that is allowed under the AZ Constitution, is something that AZ residents will have to decide, but if it is, then they can tax to raise the necessary funding (which is the same for the Fed's).
quote:
quote:
In the short term, a price control (and mandated acceptance of the insurance as payment in full) will result in a lot of providers going under. Given enough time, excess profits will be squeezed out of the entire supply chain and a "true cost" will emerge. As long as the price control is above that "true cost," there may be a chance.
I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “true cost.” I’d like to think that there is. I’d like to think that there is some kind of scientific and rational thought that goes into it, calculating the costs and figuring in a modest profit, although I’ll admit I’m somewhat cynical. I think the prices are high just to feed the humongous salaries, which are mainly a function of greed and has nothing to do with how much money they actually need to survive.
Let’s say you have a janitor making $25,000 a year and a doctor earning $250,000 a year. Why such a disparity? You might argue that the doctor is more skilled, requires more education, and whose skill is rarer and a more valued commodity than that of a janitor. But looking at such a disparity, it implies that the doctor would be 10x more skilled than the janitor, which I would find difficult to believe. At best, the doctor would be only 2x or 3x more skilled, not 10x. So, when talking about “true costs,” these are the kinds of things we need to take into consideration.
Not really. It could easily signify that the labors of one provide something more valuable than the labors of the other. I'm not sure you can truly compare the skills necessary for a janitor to the skills necessary to be a doctor. That the doctor took it upon him/her self to gain the requisite knowledge and skills to provide medical services, is of definite value. Not only do we pay the doctor for the service provided, but also for his/her choice to take the actions necessary for him/her to be able to provide those services. One skill is not necessary equal to every other skill out there. If I have the skill to draw pretty flowers, is that more valuable than the skill to build a wood deck?
And, who are we to make that decision, anyway? Who are we to decide what a doctor is worth to someone else? Nothing personal, but a doctor providing you a service isn't worth as much to me, as a doctor providing me a service is to me. I'm willing to pay a lot more for the doctor providing me a service than I am for a doctor to provide you a service. Even if it comes down to the doctors having the exact same level of skill and the doctors providing the exact same service, I will value one more than I will value the other, and my willingness to pay will reflect that.
quote:
quote:
But, the question comes up now, as to why competition hasn't already squeezed those profits out? Where there are profits, there will be an attraction of investment from areas that offer lower returns (profits). This investment will increase competition and reduce prices. So, why isn't there the requisite competition?
Because the idea of “fair competition” is largely a myth. It’s yet another opiate for the masses. It seems like a very naïve view as well. It only works as long as everybody plays fair and ethically, which is a bit much to expect in this day and age. This is a world where the big fish eat the little fish, and the primary goal of competition is to win. Or sometimes, “competitors” may collude with each other to fix the game, which is illegal and unethical but practically unenforceable.
My grandfather always used to say “They’re in business to make money.” They’re not in business to be ethical, compassionate, decent, honest, to keep people safe/healthy, or to be “good sports” interested only in fair play, as if business is supposed nothing more than a friendly golf game. Historically, we’re talking about a sector of humanity which has an awful lot of blood on its hands, so if you’re asking “Why don’t they play fair?” then I think the answer to that is obvious. They won’t play fair unless they’re constantly scrutinized, watched, audited, regulated and (sometimes) even forced at gunpoint (which is what had to happen during the Civil War). They have no ethics or morality. I often wonder if they even have the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong.
I’m not saying that my cynical perspective applies to all businessmen/businesswomen. They’re not all scum, but as with anything, it’s always the scum which rises to the top. Even business people are wary of their peers; they don’t even trust each other. So, why should anybody trust them?
Is it illegal to be unethical? Is it illegal to not be fair? If it is, then litigate it, and that will no longer be an issue.
quote:
quote:
Yes, it's a systemic and organizational matter. That was Marini's assertion, even. The US Constitution isn't really about the rights of citizens, but a granting of authorities to a Federal government. That which was not granted, was retained by the People or the States.
I disagree. The most important thing in the Constitution (at least for us citizens) is the guarantee of our rights. The actual structure and system are secondary considerations. Our rights are the most important thing. That the Constitution authorizes the government to do things like set up a Post Office is perfectly fine, although I would consider that to be a mundane function of any government, no matter if it’s a democratic-republic or a dictatorship.
The only thing that makes our Constitution special and important in our lives is that there are guarantees for our rights. Without that, then it’s nothing more than a mundane government structure which exists in every nation and under every form of government.
"Securing" our rights is the only real reason to have government in the first place. The US Constitution grants authorities to the Federal government in order for it to secure our rights. We already have the rights.
I think we might have a bit of a "semantics" argument going here.
quote:
That’s why addressing the structure or “the system” (as many people refer to it) is more of a red herring than anything else.
quote:
No politician is going to say they are "for" a larger, more intrusive government directly. But, supporting ever increasing breadth and depth of government is the same as saying they are for a larger and more intrusive government.
Not necessarily. I don’t think it would necessarily follow that a larger government would be necessarily more intrusive. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other. That’s why I maintain that protecting citizens’ rights is the most important function of the Constitution, since the government could be 10x larger but still restrained from intruding and infringing upon people’s civil rights.
What would the reason be for government to be larger, then? Recall, that the size of government needs to be adequate to secure our rights, so as long as both governments are equally able to do that, the larger government will be larger for some reason, no? Since we aren't comparing the size of government necessary to securing the rights of Americans in 1776 to the size of government necessary to securing the rights of Americans in 2013, what is different?
quote:
quote:
As for “intrusive government,” it seems that perspective is limited only to whose ox is gored. The conservative business community has shown itself to be the most hypocritical and disingenuous on this issue, since they only care about government intrusion upon their own profits, but they ostensibly don’t give a shit about other government intrusions upon the rights of the people. They’re usually the first ones to cheer when government troops are called in to crush striking workers, to round up protesters, or to quash political dissent. Back in the 19th and early 20th centuries, government was nothing more than a lap dog for the business community, and they certainly didn’t do anything to restrain government or themselves back then.
The last person who should ever complain about “intrusive government” is a businessman, since they’re the ones largely responsible for government excesses and abuses throughout most of America’s history.
quote:
While they can still be removed, it's not exactly an easy process. Look at the issue of AG Holder. Look at the heads of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and the EPA. Those people can make decisions that can have a huge impact on our lives, and not a single one of us cast a vote for that person. Those people are insulated to a degree from the will of the public.
What did you think of this proposal I made in an earlier post? That would address the issue of these posts being unelected and insulated from the will of the people.
AG Holder is supported by the President and his Party, so that’s more an issue of party politics than anything else. Unless the Attorney General is made into a separate elective office, then no other systemic or structural change could do anything about this. In fact, it was the Founding Fathers who decided that the Attorney General should be appointed and not elected directly by the people. It’s not the result of any “Administrative State” which came afterwards. This is something that existed from the very inception of our Republic, so if it’s a problem, then that problem was caused by our Founding Fathers, not by any politicians of the 20th or 21st centuries.
The AG position was just an example of how difficult it can be to replace a Presidential appointee, not a complain that the AG position itself is an issue.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative... - 
Profile
. My apologizes. Here allow me: .gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread