Board Thread:Watercooler 2.0/@comment-6198648-20130228045108/@comment-6209322-20130717215506

RE: "Necessary and Proper Clause" -- I understand the system of checks and balances, and in fact the whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to ensure that any and all governmental actions are Constitutional. With this clause, however, many powers that are not stated elsewhere in the Constitution (people try to tie them in with and under other powers, usually broad ones), thus, a whole host of powers are allowable to the Federal Government that would otherwise be completely unconsitutional should the clause not exist. As a side note, there were many founders who opposed that portion of the document, and it was by no means a universal agreement that it was needed. I personally agree with the Anti-Federalist's sentiment that the this clause could be used to infinitely expand the federal powers (paraphrased). Personally, I think State-Level Socialized Healthcare not only circumvents the (national-level) Constitutional issue entierly, and has the bonus of enabling us to have 50 different experiments going on at once to try and find the best system, instead of forcing everyone to follow the same system (which in the case of Obamacare, includes the completely anti-free-market mandatory insurance policy).

RE: Firing SCOTUS -- I think that would be grand to have some sort of system to remove/impeach/recall SCOTUS Members. There is the fear that such a system would boil down into partizen politics, where the uninformed masses are convinced to vote to remove a SCOTUS Member because they make an embarrasing gaff or don't look too great (they are usually quite old and wrinkly, after all... not good for television apperances). In short, I wonder if the American Public as a whole aren't already overwhelmed by having to choose President, Senators, and Reps (not to mentional state-level politics, local politics, and the propositions)... what would they do if burdened by yet another issue to sift through? They might have to miss a Sunday Football Game or two (gasp!). Ultimately, I support the notion, but I wonder at the practical effects.

RE: People Passing Amendments -- As you said, very hard to do, and relatively unknown outside of people who actually pay any attention to the government and it's organization.

RE: Healthcare being Constitutional -- Didn't you just finish saying that the clause has been abused by SCOTUS, and then turn and say that the same organization (which includes John Roberts, the man you specifically named as using the clause incorrectly), in a close vote, decided to uphold universal healthcare? Do you realize what that sounds like? It sounds like you are telling me that they were probably corrupt and partisan in their ruling, but the decision maintains universal healthcare, which is a good idea, so I support their decision. This assesment (faulty or no) is backed up by your following statement, which, paraphrased, states:

'A future SCOTUS might find universal healthcare unconstitutional, so we need to lock it in with an amendment now'.

Wait a minute -- then there's a possibility that universal healthcare might by unconstitutional (something you did not even allow for in your inital opening of this portion of the issue)? In that case, wouldn't it be possible then that the SCOTUS is being partisan and corrupt, and that in reality universal healthcare is unconstitutional barring an amendment? Wouldn't that make my original claim that the constitution was being ignored (or, more correctly, corruptly and wrongly interpreted), and that the boo-boo from this action will (maybe) be fixed by an amendment later on? I mean, the way you've described things, it certainly seems there's at least room for debate on the constitutionality of univeral healthcare, and the SCOTUS vote, a narrow 5-4, indicates that as well.

RE: Healthcare being a Human Right -- I'm honestly rather on the fence on this point... I do think that basic healthcare should be availible to anyone who needs it, but I also don't trust the government to administer it fairly, let alone efficiently. I might be more content with the solution if the government gave some kind of grant money to private non-profits that offered free medical cervices (there are several christian clinics like that already), though even this injures my limited-government sensibilities and is a possible way to add more bureaucracy and corruption... still, it's better than millions unable to pay for medical bills, so that's a trade-off I think I can live with, at least until something better can be implemented.

RE: State-Adopts-Their-Own-System/Fed min-wage and Vehicle Emmissions Regs -- In my thinking, both of these are also unconstitutional, and thus poor examples. These are powers not specifically enumerated to the Fed, and thus in my view the States (and of course, local communities where applicable) are responsible to set their own. While it might be nice to have a national minimum wage or safety law, both are unconstitutional. It could be argued that any companies or cars crossing statelines ought to be regulated by these minimums, intra-state these regulations are not legal. The States should adopt their own standards, as you've suggested... only they should not have a minimum. In many cases, States already have higher wage limits anyways, so the Federal Minimum is largely uneeded for them, and in the case of those states who are at the minimum and would like to lower it, I argue states right's should triumph... if the states impoverish everyone who lives within their state-lines, then their people will move away to better states, and the offending states will loose power, representation, revenue, and respect... increasing the odds that they will (albiet begrudgingly) increase their minimum wage laws just to continue. In states that try to adopt excessive (like, $50 per hour) minimums, the opposite effect will occur, and industries will move out of the state to stay open and unemployment will spread, until the offending state tone's down their mminimum rates... thus, a naturally occuring, free-market-induced minimum wage law without Federal meddling. Why not the same with Healthcare? I mean, if Romneycare were so utterly fantastic, would it not have been adopted by the other states?