A Congress that reasserts its power

Originally posted by whodey
What are the obvious reasons why states cannot mind their own affairs?

It ought to be the duty of the Executive branch of government to execute laws, if the regulations were to be left to the states to decide on their application we would see an array of irregularities and discrepancies throughout the country. There is really no good reason why someone would question the role of federal agencies.

Originally posted by whodey
For the most part, Constitutionally the federal government should only be concerned with national defense, handling disputes between states and immigration. Everything else should be left for the states. to decide.

Even I know enough about the US constitution to know this is blatantly false.

Originally posted by whodey

”See, they have a feather to hang in their hats I suppose. Do you think it makes them feel as if they have a voice in government?”

It probably does make Republicans feel as though they have a voice in government, but the truth of the matter is that they are merely silencing the voice of both the majority of government and the majority of the populace. So I ask you, what do you mean when you say “To be an opposing party one must act like one”? Do you think the Republicans’ actions were justified? Do you think 60 has become the new 51?

_________________________

Originally posted by whodey

”You see, he had to do this to try and sell it to the American people. After all, the American people don't like to hear the words 'tax increase.'"

Whatever Obama did or didn’t call it is irrelevant. Semantics aside, it is a tax, and as you seemed to acknowledge, Congress does indeed have the authority to raise taxes. So I ask you, on what basis do you question the constitutionality of the bill?

_________________________

Originally posted by whodey

”Are you suggesting that states are not capable of handling the majority of their affairs?”

I would humbly speak on behalf of others and say that indeed, states are capable of “handling” many of their own affairs, but I would dare say the quality of “handling” of education, health care, etc. in Mississippi, for example, would fall far short of the quality of “handling” of education, health care, etc. in California or New York. I’m not saying the federal government should ensure that states handle their affairs in identically similar manners; I’m saying it should have the authority to ensure that they handle their affairs equally at least to a minimum standard.

________________________

Originally posted by whodey

”Why not create departments within the legislative branch apart from the executive branch?”

There are several obvious questions you have still not answered. 1) How would merely transferring authority from one branch of the government to another reduce government bureaucracy? 2) Do you think voters should elect officials within hypothetical “departments”? If not, how would that reduce the presence of those evil “non-elected officials” you seem to feel are the cause of alleged bureaucratic headaches? 3) Do you think Congress should assume the responsibility of crafting detailed legislation to reflect the nuanced policies necessary in today’s world, even if it means Congress would have to spend substantially more time constructing substantially lengthier, more complicated legislation?

Originally posted by generalissimo
It ought to be the duty of the Executive branch of government to execute laws, if the regulations were to be left to the states to decide on their application we would see an array of irregularities and discrepancies throughout the country. There is really no good reason why someone would question the role of federal agencies.

Executing laws is one thing, however, creating new regulations every day is another. In short, creating these agencies is like signing a blank check and letting those agencies decide how much to write.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Even I know enough about the US constitution to know this is blatantly false.

Then by all means, tell us your version.

Originally posted by wittywonka
[b]Originally posted by whodey

Whatever Obama did or didn’t call it is irrelevant. Semantics aside, it is a tax, and as you seemed to acknowledge, Congress does indeed have the authority to raise taxes. So I ask you, on what basis do you question the constitutionality of the bill?

Why would what Obama said important? I think it would be very important for the courts to hear how the president presented his perception of the legislation he signed into law.

Additionally, there is no getting around the fact that you are purchasing health insurance, not just merely writing a check to the government.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Originally posted by whodey

[b]”See, they have a feather to hang in their hats I suppose. Do you think it makes them feel as if they have a voice in government?”

It probably does make Republicans feel as though they have a voice in government, but the truth of the matter is that they are merely silencing the voice of both the majority of substantially more time constructing substantially lengthier, more complicated legislation?[/b]

My biggest issue is when one branch gives power to another to create/interpret laws. My second issue is the size and scope of the crap that comes out of these regulatory agencies. It costs trillions of tax payer dollars to keep them up and running. In addition, it costs businesses billions if not trillions every year tying to comply or curb their productivity to comply with these endless regulations. Then there is the department of education that has the audacity to not self dissolve for it inability to raise the public education system to at least average international standards.

So what if there is a state out there that does not want to have all of these endless regulations imposed upon it? Tough!! It just doesn't seem right.

Really what is most needed now is an agency to nix antiquated regulations or one to find ways to down size these agencies to cut costs. Of course, with the government there is never any self regulation or accountability. In fact, you are lucky for anyone to even raise an eyebrow when they brazenly lie to your face.

Originally posted by whodey
I think it would be very important for the courts to hear how the president presented his perception of the legislation he signed into law.

Additionally, there is no getting around the fact that you are purchasing health insurance, not just merely writing a check to the government.

Obama was arguing semantics. The law still imposes a tax.

Last time I checked, taxpayers don't pay based on an itemized revenue checklist. It's not $100 dollars for roads, $150 dollars for street lights, $500 dollars for salaries for teachers, policemen, etc.; it's $750 for the government to use at its disposal.

Originally posted by whodey
My biggest issue is when one branch gives power to another to create/interpret laws. My second issue is the size and scope of the crap that comes out of these regulatory agencies. It costs trillions of tax payer dollars to keep them up and running. In addition, it costs businesses billions if not trillions every year tying to comply or curb their productiv ...[text shortened]... In fact, you are lucky for anyone to even raise an eyebrow when they brazenly lie to your face.

So now you're saying that it's not that the executive branch should return power to the legislative branch, but that the whole federal government should return power to the individual states? What happened to creating "agencies" under the control of Congress?

On another note, let me rephrase my earlier question. Do you think a student in a public school in Mississippi, or West Virginia, or Arkansas, would receive anywhere near the same quality of education as a public school student in California or New York, if the Department of Education were dissolved? What about health care - do you think it would be comparable at all across state lines if the industry were deregulated? Or how about working conditions? Car safety regulations? Airplane safety regulations? Judicial systems and law enforcement? I hope you will agree with me that standards would not be comparable. If you think that's a good thing, fine, so be it. However, I would argue that people of all states deserve an equal shot at a minimum quality standard across state lines.

Originally posted by whodey
Then by all means, tell us your version.

Well to start, you did ignore, or at best mentioned only implicitly, the existence of the commerce clause.

Originally posted by wittywonka
So now you're saying that it's not that the executive branch should return power to the legislative branch, but that the whole federal government should return power to the individual states? What happened to creating "agencies" under the control of Congress?

On another note, let me rephrase my earlier question. Do you think a student in a public sch ...[text shortened]... eople of all states deserve an equal shot at a minimum quality standard across state lines.

The fact remains that whether we are talking about Congress deferring to the Executive Branch or we are talking about Obamacare mandating that Americans buy health insurance, both are, at best, gray areas in terms of the Constitution. After all, if it were so black and white as you claim it is or the way Nancy Pelosi insisted it was, the courts would not have even heard these cases.

So you are in love with big government. I get it. You like the idea of President Obama having a hand in everything from educating your children to what doctor you are going to see. I have to admit, it is kinda nice to have someone hold your hand every day, but then, I wish it were at least a good looking female.

Originally posted by whodey
The fact remains that whether we are talking about Congress deferring to the Executive Branch or we are talking about Obamacare mandating that Americans buy health insurance, both are, at best, gray areas in terms of the Constitution. After all, if it were so black and white as you claim it is or the way Nancy Pelosi insisted it was, the courts would not hav ...[text shortened]... have someone hold your hand every day, but then, I wish it were at least a good looking female.

whodey: You like the idea of President Obama having a hand in everything from educating your children to what doctor you are going to see.

A typical hysterical lie from this forum's most consistent purveyor of blatant falsehoods.

Originally posted by whodey
Then by all means, tell us your version.

This look familiar:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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.


A bit more than the whodey version i.e. "For the most part, Constitutionally the federal government should only be concerned with national defense, handling disputes between states and immigration. Everything else should be left for the states. to decide."

Originally posted by whodey
Executing laws is one thing, however, creating new regulations every day is another. In short, creating these agencies is like signing a blank check and letting those agencies decide how much to write.

You seem to be playing a game of semantics here, obviously it is by implication the duty of the Executive branch to have agencies with delegated regulatory powers in order to properly execute laws.

Originally posted by whodey
So you are in love with big government. I get it. You like the idea of President Obama having a hand in everything from educating your children to what doctor you are going to see. I have to admit, it is kinda nice to have someone hold your hand every day, but then, I wish it were at least a good looking female.

YES! We have a winner, winner, winner! I was waiting for the ad hominem attack to come out - bravo, bravo, encore, encore! You gave a valliant effort, good sir, to defend your positions, and now that I see that you have devolved away from the discussion at hand, I will assume that you no longer have an interest in continuing this conversation. Well played, and very original.