"The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country"?

Well we saw under the previous administration with shredding the constitution, abandoning Geneva Convention treaties, outing CIA agents, the firing of DOJ lawyers and lying the country into illegal wars that there doesn’t seem to be any accountability, so yes, it seems the government can pretty much do whatever it wants.

 

take 'most' out of thread title for accuracy

 

Yes; large, diverse countries need strong central institutions.

 

I wonder how Jim Crow would vote.

 

Can they do anything? Pretty much

Are they supposed to be able to do anything? No

 

what did the clinton administration actually do? reduce welfare?

 

Unless it needs to. Then it is rendered, or pretends to be, impotent.

I agree the media blows things out of proportion, but really? I know that 'conservatives' would rather pretend like it's business as lusual, but I find it laughable that after the example of the current and previous 2 administrations people even still pretend to equate such things. The Froth and Frenzy of clinton's would-be impeachment vs. the F&F outrage at how we entered into war with Iraq... nearly the same... but isn't that the joke? Oh, but wait, we didn't form a commission to impeach Bush.

I can think of no other time in our country's history where reason and accountability were so blatantly disregarded than under the Bush administration, and would base my answer to this poll (nearly, unfortunately yes) with them as the prime example of the lack of safeguards in place to actually enforce a balance of the powers and accountability in the way we were all taught that it should be.

That said, I would say for the most part, Congress is our problem... not the executive branch. That and the 'justice' dept.

 

I saw the video and first I will say that it was terrible answers by Rep Stark. Clearly there are Constitutional limitations to all sorts of things. Stark looked lost out there and overwhelmed.

Second though is that the questioner herself doesn't seem to understand the Constitution and what are rights. Her citing of the 13th Amendment in regard to trying to tie in Health Care to slavery is completely off base. Nothing in the latest health care bill commits someone to slavery as involuntarily servitude. The health care bill has a mandate to purchase insurance but nothing about a mandate to provide care.

Even if the law did say that service needed to be provided that isn't a violation of rights since laws are already legal compel service to be provided by all sorts of people. For instance a fire fighter is legally compelled to respond to a fire. Also doctors are already legally and ethically compelled to provide emergency medical service under the Hippocratic Oath. Under the questioner's reasoning though that is slavery if so then this is something that the argument is long since over.

Anyway slavery and involuntary servitude would imply that the person being compelled to offer service has no choice but to be in that profession. A doctor or fire fighter is not legally forced to being either and can leave the profession. As long as they choose to remain in that profession they are legally compelled to offer service under emergency situations.

Finally as the usual problem with these type of issues they seem to selectively read the Constitution. While the Constitution does limit the power of the Federal government it also has the General Welfare and Commerce Clause both of which are applicable in regard to Health Care Reform. The 10th Amendment doesn't prevent that since that is a specifically enumerated power of Congress.

 

Just to add though if you under the argument of the Unitary Executive as outlined by people like John Yoo and Addington, yes the Federal Government can do anything when it is determined to be in the national security of the US.

Just curious. Oddson. Do you agree with the principle of the Unitary Executive?

 

clinton lied us into a war which has cost billions, killed and maimed thousands of our troops and tens of thousands (conservative estimate) of innocent men, women and children?

clinton changed the legal definition of torture to be only acts that result in organ failure or death?

clinton allowed warrantless wiretapping of american citizens?

clinton signed off on the patriot act?

clinton spent over $2 billion paying off journalists, planting fake news stories and propaganda pieces?

in answer to your question, the answer would be an obvious 'yes'. the issue for me however, is that when republicans/bush/cheney controlled things many 'conservatives' loved it and actually slandered those who did complain. and the things that obama is doing which one might argue to be constitutional violations are simply continuations of things bush was doing - especially wrt civil liberties issues.

 

yes, i am curious too. it is basically the nixonian concept that "if the president does it, it is not illegal". john yoo actually said that the president has the authority to have a child's testicles crushed in order to get info out of the parents if he deems it necessary. do you agree w/ this statement?

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo, "If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", to which Yoo replied "No treaty." Cassel followed up with "Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...", to which Yoo replied "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." [38][39]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

 

republicans/conservatives/teabaggers dont seem to mind when the federal government oversteps its bounds regarding wars, torture, spying, propaganda, military-industrial-complex, ect - but the minute we start talking about a public option its nazi germany.

 

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/acLW1vFO-2Q&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/acLW1vFO-2Q&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Rocket River

 

I wish we could split taxpayers into two voluntary categories.

Those willing to pay for life and prosperity (welfare programs, national healthcare, education programs).

And those willing to pay for death and suffering (i.e "national security", military-industrial, cluster bombs/JSF, prison system etc. etc.)

Obviously we'd have euphemisms. Almost nobody wants to be a "Death" guy, but rename it "Real Men" or something and see where that leads you. You choose whether or not your money goes to butter or guns.

Of course, there will be some inherent contradictions. (Abortion being a key one-I wonder how many "pro-American lifers" are out there? Fight to the death for American fetuses but actively support policies that kill thousands of non-Americans.) But hey, it's a learning experience. It'll probably force many people to rethink their views lest they go all "ah, sh**, I've been a hypocrite all my life."

Or they can just keep on rolling unaware or just swallow the fact that, for example, they consider all third-world citizens to be sub-human. Either way, the system should work.

 

Stark is absolutely right, sadly.

While the 10th Amendment ostensibly limits federal power to that which is enumerated in the Constitution, The General Wellfare and Commerce Clause as currently interpreted makes the federal government's power limited to only what is explicitly restricted in the bill of rights and some other amendments.

There is nothing the state does that you can't argue is intended to promote the general wellfare, and almost all human activity has some indirect miniscule effect on interstate commerce.

While I don't think that was the intent of the founders, that's the way it has been used, and to be honest, it's a pretty reasonable interpretation of the text.

That's why I don't get when people say the Constitution is some flawless document. It has vagueries left open for interpretation that lawyers and power grabbers have a field day with. If you are trying to limit the power of the state over citizens, you don't give it the power to "promote the general wellfare". That's just a license to invade every part of our lives, which is exactly what has happened. There is almost no human activity that isn't subject to state regulation to some degree.

I think Obamacare, which forces citizens to purchase a private product, is pushing the limits of federal power. But then hey, you can just say forcing everyone to buy something is promoting the general wellfare. It's a universal trump card to unrestricted power.

 

Regardless of political party, entrenched politicians usually become major league a-holes.

 

Why am I forced to buy Car Insurance!!!??!!

I feel ya on this

Rocket River

 

are you serious, the insurance isn't for you, its for whom you may hit.