Posted on 07/23/2017 8:43:40 AM PDT by ForYourChildren
When the sovereign states decided to create a federal government (yes, it was the states that created the federal government and not the other way around), it was not an open-ended arrangement where the states surrendered all of their powers and authority to the new entity.
It was quite to the contrary.
Only certain, specifically identified powers, called “enumerated powers,” were delegated to the federal government from the states — powers that the Founding Fathers believed were best performed on a national basis, duties like “provide for the common defense,” to coin money, establish uniform immigration laws, “Post Offices,” treaties with foreign nations, to regulate (which does not mean restrict) interstate commerce, and a few others. These powers were clearly listed in Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution.
James Madison, considered the main author and father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist #45, regarding the Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, the following two sentences that summarize this principle of state sovereignty and a limited federal government:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
Madison further described the proper role for the soon-to-be federal government versus the unique roles of the individual states:
“The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
{..snip..}
(Excerpt) Read more at thepolitistick.com ...
“The power of Healthcare not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, therefore the power of Healthcare is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Amendment X
The power of Healthcare by the Federal government is illegal.
If the Federal government TAKES the power of Healthcare, it is by force, not legal, and not lawfully binding.
There should only be doctors, patients, and insurance companies.
For the indigent, a state run safety net. If states halve the public pension funds and give it to health care, they could cover all the needy.
Very, very important post.
THIS is what the President, and especially the Speaker of the House, should be hammering home from the bully pulpit to the halls of Congress Every. Single. Day.
I hope and pray the ‘right’ people will read your post and run with it.
What about regulating who may use which bathroom? Is that a little outside the constitution and what the founders intended?
This would mean eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, Tricare, etc.
Do you really think that's the way to spend political capital today?
A party that seriously advocated this wouldn't get 15% of the vote.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
A whole lot more of what the Federal government does is, in fact, unconstitutional. Yet, the 9 members of the Supreme Court, with its activist judges, refuse to strike down these laws.
JoMa
Well, I hear you, but if we’re going to once again be the land of the free; the home of the brave, the likes of this is what needs to be done. In my opinion.
You are correct - the majority of the ignoramuses and communists in this country would reject that out of hand for sure.
But the alternative is the slow road to tyranny. You may have noticed we’re mighty close to that already.
“This would mean eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, Tricare, etc.”
Just want to add - or ask - couldn’t those be administered on the state/local level? The services probably wouldn’t be uniform, but they still can be available.
As for healthcare, I keep wondering, if every liberal (on both sides) simply ponied up $100 per month, they'd likely have enough to fund a clinic in each and every city in the nation. Instead, they insist that everyone pony up $100 per month and only a third of the cities in the nation have open clinics at the moment.
Government only works if severely limited to keep out of the path of the people getting real work done.
>>This is the inconvenient truth no politician in Washington, D.C. will admit. But if they were honest, they would.<<
If they were honest, they wouldn’t be in politics.
BTW, for good reading, try Davy Crocket’s speech to Congress on April 2, 1828:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=006/llrd006.db&recNum=309
How about capping every public pension to a maximum of the average household income in the county where they reside?
What am I saying, even that reasonable limit would be seen as too little of a ‘reward’ for ‘public service.’ Let the embezzlement of public funds continue unrestricted, saith the public employee.
The Constitution now says whatever the hell five out of nine Supreme Court Justices want it to say and five Justices wanted it to say that Obamacare is Constitutional.
“The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
That is a fabulous concept, however, over the years the SCOTUS has ruled that is not what the Constitution means. The 'commerce clause" and "general welfare" clause means there is virtually no limits at all on the FedGov.
And too many fair-weather conservatives are afraid to say that a whole lot of what the Federal government does is, in fact, unconstitutional - because they don't realize that "winning" elections by abandoning your principles is no "win" at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.