Fear of a Black President

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Article I.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
...
To establish post offices and post roads;

ican711nm wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The Founders always intended that any taxes levied for the 'general welare' would be used for the benefit of everybody--roads, commonly used government buildings, maintenance of the army and navy and such--and not for any individual. Again it would have been unthinkable to the Founders to confiscate lawful property from one man in order to give that to another.

Interesting... In that case, your definition seems to cover a state run universal health care system, as long as every citizen of the United States would have the same access to health care.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Yes, but you don't seem to understand that the 'people' of America voluntarily granted the gov't power to Section 8. The Congress shall have power
...
Cycloptichorn

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Foxfyre wrote:

That would be true IF the required taxes were equally applied, IF all would have the choice to benefit equally, IF there was no erosion in quality and access, and IF such services could not be provided more efficiently and effectively by the private sector. The Founders did not think it appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector and that was another principle that prevailed until FDR's change in focus that was quite well intended but has produced so many unintended negative consequences.

In that case, let me point you to Article 1 Section 8, which pretty clearly awards Congress the power to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions". If the Founders did not think it appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector, what's your argument for socialized armed forces?

Foxfyre wrote:

That would be true IF the required taxes were equally applied, IF all would have the choice to benefit equally, IF there was no erosion in quality and access, and IF such services could not be provided more efficiently and effectively by the private sector. The Founders did not think it appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector and that was another principle that prevailed until FDR's change in focus that was quite well intended but has produced so many unintended negative consequences.

In that case, let me point you to Article 1 Section 8, which pretty clearly awards Congress the power to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions". If the Founders did not think it appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector, what's your argument for socialized armed forces?

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to
...
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, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

That would be true IF the required taxes were equally applied, IF all would have the choice to benefit equally, IF there was no erosion in quality and access, and IF such services could not be provided more efficiently and effectively by the private sector. The Founders did not think it appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector and that was another principle that prevailed until FDR's change in focus that was quite well intended but has produced so many unintended negative consequences.

In that case, let me point you to Article 1 Section 8, which pretty clearly awards Congress the power to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions". If the Founders did not think it appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector, what's your argument for socialized armed forces?

I guess I don't understand the question. To uphold the Constitution, the President and all Congressmen and all Military, standing army and militian, as well as new citizens being sworn in, take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Constitution provides for a military to enforce that and also provides for states to establish their own militias for the same purposes. Neither are 'private sector'. The President has the authority to call up the state militias as necessary for the common defense.

The Constitution authorizes and requires the government to provide a common defense. It does not authorize the government to provide the general welfare.

Where in the USA Constitution does it say it is not "appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector" in any area whatsoever?

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

That would be true IF the required taxes were equally applied, IF all would have the choice to benefit equally, IF there was no erosion in quality and access, and IF such services could not be provided more efficiently and effectively by the private sector. The Founders did not think it appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector and that was another principle that prevailed until FDR's change in focus that was quite well intended but has produced so many unintended negative consequences.

In that case, let me point you to Article 1 Section 8, which pretty clearly awards Congress the power to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions". If the Founders did not think it appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector, what's your argument for socialized armed forces?

Where in the USA Constitution does it say it is not "appropriate for the government to compete with the private sector" in any area whatsoever?

Quote:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to
...
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, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Also you are still decidedly ignoring my questions to you on the Conservatism 2008 thread. Do you think I should answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine?

ican711nm wrote:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

No Federal roads, then?

ican711nm wrote:

Article I.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
...
To establish post offices and post roads;

Sure. Post offices and post roads.

You can't use post offices to conduct your private business. So why do you think it would be legitimate to open up those Federal post roads to public use?

Article I.Section 10. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Why do you think it not "legitimate to open up those Federal post roads to public use?"
They are after all roads owned by the public and I've found no provisions in the Constitution denying public use of post roads.

There are provisions in the Constitution denying use of government facilities unless authorized by Congress. For example:

Quote:

Article I.Section 10. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Foxfyre wrote:

Also you are still decidedly ignoring my questions to you on the Conservatism 2008 thread. Do you think I should answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine?

I see you've added this to your post....

Well, I'm sorry I missed your post in that other thread. I promise that I'll go back and answer your questions in that thread. Eventually.

Apologies, it wasn't the Conservatism thread--it was the General Election thread HERE

When you can get to it.

ican711nm wrote:

Why do you think it not "legitimate to open up those Federal post roads to public use?"
They are after all roads owned by the public and I've found no provisions in the Constitution denying public use of post roads.

Maybe not explicitly. Have you found any provision denying public use of post offices?

ican711nm wrote:

There are provisions in the Constitution denying use of government facilities unless authorized by Congress. For example:

Quote:

Article I.Section 10. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

To me, that seems like a very poor example of a provision that would deny public use of government facilities. It rather seems that individual states are not allowed to appropriate Federal facilities, or impede usage of such facilities.

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 1. Section 8. The Congress shall have power
...
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper 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.

Yes, but you don't seem to understand that the 'people' of America voluntarily granted the gov't power to create and run a Dep't of Education, and to tax them for it.

My point was simply the fact that the Constitution explicitly prohibits certain actions by the states or even by the federal government, but no where does it prohibit the public use of post roads. In fact, I cannot find any clause in the Constitution that implies that the public is prohibited the use of post roads. I even looked for public buildings or other facilities the public is implicitly prohibited from ever entering.

Here are some more constitutional prohibitions of the states or federal government:

<snip>

On the otherhand this power is delegated the federal government:

Quote:

Article 1. Section 8. The Congress shall have power
...
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper 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.

real life wrote:

old europe wrote:

real life wrote:

'Change' is needed in the US health care system, no doubt about it.

But the solution is less government , not more, in most cases.

Good to see you coming around on this one.

I'm sure the details can be argued. Whether a virtually entirely state run system like Britain's NHS or a virtually completely private universal health care system like the Swiss one would be better is anybody's guess, and arguments can be found for and against either one (or any other system).

How 'bout letting individuals make their own choices whether they want to be part of any 'system' at all?

If you can find a way to allow people that choice while creating a universal health care system, feel free to make a suggestion.

On the other hand, if you feel that there should be no such thing as a universal health care system, that's fine, too.

Foxfyre wrote:

The Founders always intended that any taxes levied for the 'general welare' would be used for the benefit of everybody--roads, commonly used government buildings, maintenance of the army and navy and such--and not for any individual. Again it would have been unthinkable to the Founders to confiscate lawful property from one man in order to give that to another.

Interesting... In that case, your definition seems to cover a state run universal health care system, as long as every citizen of the United States would have the same access to health care.

How is the public school system different from universal health care?