Theoretically the democrats are the party of the working class, but functionally that doesn't pan out so well.

Aren´t the democrats liberal?

Stranger, I know nothing about Austiran health care. How is it paid for? Do you have a co-payment if you need an operation? Do you have a tax just for health care or is universal health care for the 8-9 million people in Austria paid for out of the general tax fund? Do you have to wait for care? If you need a hip replacement what is the waiting time for an operation?

@STRANGER..."in most parts of Europe our system works..." SAME HERE despite media rhetoric to the contrary. And, just as you are ill-informed about the US, the general impression Americans are left with about Europe is that you guys are in a hideous financial mess, much the same as the US...ie. you are payign through the nose for social welfare programs you can't afford, and when you ask people to cough up a few extra tax dollars and maybe work a little longer, they riot in the streets...

So...equally uninformed is how we are about one another.

"GENERAL WELFARE" vs. "DEFINED, LIMITED FEDERAL POWER -- WITH ALL OTHER POWER GOING TO THE STATES"

No part of the Constitution is written in a vacuum. You can not simply look at the Commerce Clause and say, "LOOKEE HERE, unlimited Federal Power!!!!" and ignore that FACT that AT THE SAME TIME the writers SPECIFICALLY LIMITED Federal Power, and said the States had ALL other power. So, either the writers of the Constitution were actually insane and contradicting themselves, our the Liberals have created a broad Federal Power that doesn't exist because they don't know how to use a dictionary...

Secondary point, they created a government that, *UNLIKE* the Monarchy they just left behind, did NOT have ULTIMATE POWER OVER THEM....and yet, again, in contradiction to every rationale thought, Liberals think that, while trying to protect themselves from another authoritarian government, they slipped in a sneaky little clause to give their new government total power over them.

The lack of logical processes in comprehending the Commerce Clause in light the totality of the Constitution, coupled with its historical context, is mind boggling...

Well, the economy in Austria works quite well, even though it is right what you say krellin, we are pretty lazy. ;)
However, there is no need for any co-payment, and yes, we have kind of a tax just for health, even though it´s called like federal health insurance, but it is bound on your income, so I consider it as a tax. There are hardly any situations where you have to wait. I mean, except for sometimes 2 or 3 hours, when you come without telling first. When I had my appendix put out two years ago, we drove into hospital at 3 in the morning, and 12 hours later I got operated.

Haha, one exchange student from Michigan once told us how surprised she was when she first went to a doctor here, because you don´t need an apointment.

The Constitution was written when our society was 80% agrarian. The country today is 80% urban. Ad the horrendous history of denial of rights based on race, sex, and religion and you get a huge difference in interpretation of the Constitution. Disclaimer. This post is not meant to disparage, demean, or condemn anyone else's post or viewpoint fictional or real.

@Emac -- the *wonderful* thing about the Constitution is that it is a "living" document, able to change as required by the consent of society. Witness...slavery is no longer the law of the land.

So, when people complain that the Constitution is an outdated document, they are saying the the American people are...what? Too lazy, or too ill-informed, to go through the Constitutional process to update it?

The other beauty of it is that we have a Constitutional Supreme Court who's duty it is to *interpret*...and, in order to reflect society, this court is filled with (what are essentially) political appointees, so that the general attitude of the people is reflected on the intentionally-slow-changing court.

The country was never supposed to be run by mob rule and social-media hype-of-the-day. The difficulty is changing things in intentional....but *very* achievable -- as it has been successfully amended 27 times in just over 235 years of history - an average of once every 8 years (though, yes, I know, they are front loaded.)

If anything, in today's information climate, it should be easier than ever to propose and ratify a change to the Constitution if there were one the People were interested in...

@stranger -- if it took them 12 ours to operate on my daughter if she came in with an appendix that was about to rupture and needed to be removed, I'd be pissed that I had to wait that long. Just sayin'... I know...sometimes they need to observe and wait...I get it, but again, this notion that the US health care system is "broken" is ridiculous. *Most* people I know recite the media-driven mantra that the health care system is broken...but ask them if they want to give up their own health insurance for the government plan (even if it's "free"....NOT...) they will say NO...

Yes, maybe the media has blown the whole thing up. But poor people dying of curable diseases is terrible though. Thank god I am not responsible for that.

@ Putin33

Nope. It's an individual right, and the Supreme Court backs me up on this one:
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

And Thuc + 1 for the amendment process. I would argue that all laws that ban a weapon by type (fully automatic weapons or non-sporting weapons greater than .50 caliber, to name two) are unconstitutional, since they fall into the protected category of "arms". However, rights are not unlimited. You cannot incite violence under the First Amendment. Similarly, I would be opposed to allowing criminals, mentally incompetent people, or minors under the age of 18 to carry guns (I do think that minimum age for concealed carry should be lowered to 18 nationwide, and that weapons be allowed on college campuses)

I think that the Second Amendment should be nationalized under the Fourteenth Amendment, because otherwise you have states like California that have bullshit may-issue cities like San Francisco, where guns are in effect banned.

The only gun laws should be national laws that set minimum age at 18 and ban felons, violent criminals, and mentally incompetent people from owning guns. Anything else is unconstitutional.

@Stranger, people with insurance die of curable diseases, too.

and, again, taking that thought to the logical extreme, why are we letting poor people drive around in vehicles that do not meet current Federal safety standards? That is rather cruel, don't you think? Where is the automobile subsidy? People are obese because they can't (or REFUSE to...) purchase quality healthy food. Where is the Federal grocery mandate?

Once you start down this path, define how it stops?

@Gunfighter - If we are going to lower the concealed carry to 18, why not also lower the drinking age to 18?

18 -- old enough to get shipped overseas to shoot people you have never met, old enough to legally impregnate a girl or become impregnated, old enough to pay taxes....but it's jail for you if you crack open a beer! Madness...

For that matter...we can't consume a drug (alcohol) that literally has the ability to kill (poisoning)....but you can't light up a joint? Madness....

<Can't> consume...should be <can> consume a drug (alcohol)

Krellin

If the 10 amendment works as you describe, then what part of the constitution allows for an air force. Please use a direct quote

@Krellin - don't bother with abgemacht. Abgemacht is stuck on the USAC becomning the USAF as some kind of issue despite no one ever challenging it iin the USSC.

@Abge - As has been pointed out numerous times... If some idiot decided to challenge it and it *made* it to the SC, therw would just be a very fast Amendment establishing the creation of the USAF and the states would have it ratified in days. Why the fuck do you insist on this strawman bullshit?

@krellin - ever heard of water poisining? That's right, you can drink so much water you die.

@Draug -- I know, Abge started this thread coming after me as a result of our interaction on a couple other threads and *conveniently* failed to mention that I already addressed days ago, specifically to him, the issue that he managed to "find" in the Commerce clause. I have no use for such foolishness. He's a smart guy, but he clearly has never taken the time to understand the Constitution or the legal system, as you point out...

@Draug again...yup...I've seen someone get sick from too much water playing "Hearts for water"...every time you lost you had to chug a huge thing of water...

But...you kind of wonder why, given Waters lethal properties, that the whack-job environmentalists aren't trying to eliminate it. Hell, I've killed a good number of plants over the years with water, too. The EPA has called CO2 a dangerous polutant (even though it is a natural byproduct of life and is FOOD for plants...) Water really can't be much farther down on the target list...

I just don't understand why everyone is so angry about this USAF stuff.

Is there anyone who understands what I'm saying?

When *I* want a social program how come *I* have to provide direct quotes to establish that it's constitutional but when *you* want a defense program (USAF) *you* can just claim by assertion that it's fine or if it's not, it would, without a doubt, be ratified immediately when questioned.

That's not how arguments work. Krellin asked me to defend the NSF. I'm asking him to defend the USAF. Why is that not OK?

@abge - Here is why. Because *your* programs are being challenged in the courts, and the USAF is *not*. Very clear delineation.

"I know, Abge started this thread coming after me as a result of our interaction on a couple other threads and *conveniently* failed to mention that I already addressed days ago"

That is complete horse-shit. The only thing I remember from our other thread is that you were yelling at me for not wanting to be a janitor (which I never mentioned by the way).

Hide behind statements you never made and never reference all you want. Or, you could actually defend a position for once on this form and find the part of the constitution that allows for the USAF.

@Draug

I'm pretty sure the NSF has never been challenged.

Furthermore, if it's impossible to tell a priori if something is constitutional based on reading the text, then why are we having this discussion at all?

@Krellin

Insured people die because, I guess, some insurance companies heads are jerks/ doctors are incompetent. So, socialising medicine would be the thing to solve this.
I for one would say it has to stop right there. There is healthy, cheap food and there are other possibilities than driving an insecure vehicle. Of course, your suggestion about making federal safety standards stricter seems quite appropriate. ;)

Are you serious about legalizing pot, however?

Insured people die because doctors are incompetent?

Excuse me, but according to your logic, that if all doctors were competent and the best care provided to all insured people then they would all become immortal?
Get real.

Abge, Article 18 of the Constitution says "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."

This quote allows the creation of the Air Force by the Federal government because it is necessary and proper to conduct national defense which is the responsibility of the Federal Governemnt.

@Abge -- again, you discussed constitutional issues wiht me in multiple threads last week. YOU posted this thread referencing other threads, NOT ME. So YOU go look up all the discussions....that ebing said, I have made myself rather clear here what the issue is with your interpretation of unlimited Federal power and the inconsistencies of that versus the ENTIRE Constitution and the context of its creation. Man up and address those topics if you care. Quite whining.

@stranger -- you can't say "I would have it stop there...". Once you set the precedent that the Federal government has power to *require* commerce, they can begin *requiring* all sorts of things...you know, because you are too stupid, lowly citizen, to take care of yourself and *only* big Government can save you from yourself.

At some point in time, people have to be required to have *personal responsibility*. That might mean giving up cable TV and beer on the weekend and a data plan on your smart phone so that you can instead buy health insurance....but requiring Americans to give up their luxuries will never fly. Personal responsibility has no place in American politics...at least on the Liberal side of things. Everyone actually believe that they can *force* equal outcomes on people...and they intend to tax you to death in their failed attempts to do so...

Insured people die of CURABLE DISEASES because...*

Guys,

perhaps a discussion of U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) will help add some understanding to this debate. It illustrates where the US was, and where it remains today on this issue.

Prior to 1937, there was a debate as to whether or not Congress could spend for whatever purpose it wished (so long as the "general welfare" was being served), or whether Congress could only spend in order to carry out one of the other enumerated powers listed in Article I, Sec. 8.

In U.S. v. Butler, the Court held that no such limitation exists -- the spending (and taxing) powers are themselves enumerated powers, so Congress may spend (and tax) to achieve the general welfare, even though no other enumerated power is being furthered.

The Court first concluded that the power to "tax and spend for general welfare" existed as a power separate and distinct from the other powers enumerated in Article I, Sec. 8. Thus the taxing-and-spending power stood on equal footing with, say, the power to regulate interstate commerce.

But, the Court rejected the contention that Congress has an independent power to "provide for the general welfare" apart from the power to tax and spend. Thus Congress may not regulate in a particular area merely on the ground that it is thereby providing for the general welfare; it is only taxing and spending which may be done "for the general welfare." Otherwise, the Court noted, the federal government would be one of "general and unlimited powers," rather than enumerated and limited ones.

The most important principle for which U.S. v. Butler stands today is that Congress has NO POWER TO REGULATE for the purpose of providing for the "general welfare." Congress MAY spend for the general welfare, it MAY tax for the general welfare, but it MAY NOT regulate for the general welfare.

Does this help clear some issues up?