Biden plans to ask Congress for funding to develop new COVID vaccine, may require shot for all

It would be a net benefit for every person collecting, and you claimed that if a persons welfare goes down so does the general welfare, I never said nation, nice misrepresentation.
Still nothing then?

 

Correct. I choose to support legislation protecting people.

 

another dodge, wasting my time have a nice day

 

like regulating the womb.
we already have that

 

Stuff like that is in the National Security interest and because of it a matter of the Federal Government.

 

Of course. I agree. I don't understand where you got the notion that I oppose public health. I oppose federal government involvement in it.

A fine and important overall statement of good government. However it doesn't suggest that federal government should engage in activities beyond its powers in order to do that. Most of what federal government does belongs in the states.

 

A popular opinion. However it isn't what the constitution says.

 

Somehow you ignored what I said. Protecting the borders is an enumerated power of federal government. They simply don't exercise the power very well.

I have no power to implement my ideas. I can only share them with others.

That has always been the case and will be the case always. Peoples' ability to earn money is not equal. It is what it is. Nobody wants the trough from which they feed to be emptied. Nevertheless all of it belongs in the states. If the states want programs like that then they should implement them. They don't belong in federal government. You continue to argue the value of government programs. I'm not disagreeing with any of it. I am pointing out that they are placed in the states by the constitution.

 

No, I don't think so. Looking after a helpless infant is different than bossing around a functioning adult.

 

Why no reply? The agencies I identified do more than "fund things."

Protecting from what? If the fed's job is protection, they decide what to protect against. You don't want abortion pills in your state? If the feds decide not to stop their importation, your state is virtually helpless to regulate against them. Same with fentanyl.

Your ideas around the feds only having powers expressly granted in the Constitution has problems. The Founders never envisioned a need to regulate the electromagnetic spectrum or the availability of radioactive materials.

We're a democratic republic and citizens are disinclined to allow some people to starve because their "ability to earn money is not equal" in an economy with rules we set up.

My state doesn't care about feeding starving people and they immigrate to your state....

So, too, the general welfare clause by Founders who knew limiting the feds to expressly enumerated powers in the Constitution was unworkable.

 

Keeping the feds out of effective public health isn't possible.

Then you have to convince voters of your position. Based on your comment, I think you and your fellow travelers have so far been unconvincing.

 

It does suggest it. The words "The Congress shall have Power" refer to the federal government specifically.

Which enumerated power is it?

1. pay debts;
2. borrow money;
3. regulate commerce;
4. coin money;
5. establish post offices;
6. protect patents and copyrights;
7. establish lower courts;
8. declare war;
9. raise and support an Army and Navy;
10. establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization;
11. See below

Quote:
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 Offences 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.

 

Not only is it possible but it is how public health actually works. We have been over this already.

Allow me to simplify that for you. The constitution wants a state department, a defense department, a treasury department, a justice department, a homeland security department (because of the reorganization of some of those activities) and a postal service. Your list resides in those governmental departments. The purpose is to defend the nation, deal with other nations, provide a stable currency and resolve interstate disputes. And the postal service, of course. Everything related to the common welfare would exclude non enumerated powers since it doesn't suggest that it should and the 10th amendment puts them in the states.

People, myself excluded, are comfortable with what federal government has become. So I don't expect to convince anybody. But I have to make the suggestions because I think the founders had it right by setting up a federal government designed to support those functions better suited to a national program rather than to have a central government with provinces which is what we have today. I am guided by the words of the constitution, not the interpretations made for political purposes by the government. I appreciate the work you put into your post but I'm quite familiar with the constitution. My opinions are developed over many years of reading and thinking. There is a lot more but I won't go any further here.

 

As I said it is a matter of security.
You say homeland security is ok, vaccines belong into that department, too.
A pandemic that effects millions in the US, creates a security risk.
Take the armed forces, half of them out, because of a nasty bug like Covid, or production lines for military equipment no working, because of nasty bug like Covid.
The collapse of healthcare as we have seen, is a matter of national security.

 

Ok, but you didn't answer the question.

 

Yes, and I pointed out how you were wrong.

Alas, the ship on your interpretation of the Constitution sailed long ago.

So, regulating the electromagetic spectrum should be left to the states?

This may be disappoint you... I taught U.S. history for decades.

 

That is a fair point. The founders were unaware of the electromagnetic spectrum. The states could get together to agree on standards or send it to the federal government. My position is that federal government's role is to serve the states with activities that are better centralized. Assigning radio frequencies would fit that position. It could be a part of the justice department or treasury department.

I would also like to return to the practice of having the state legislators choose Senators. That gave the states a solid influence on federal government while public election for seats in the House provides that influence for the people. I think it was a better way to do it.

We have way way too much federal government. Anything that would reign it in is positive in my view. It is a hopeless case as you say. That is why I don't vote. There is never anybody that wants less government with a plan to achieve it on the ballot. It is the only thing really that matters to me.

Nothing wrong with teaching American history. I taught high school Spanish for a year and a half prior to being drafted into the Army.

 

Our government is tied in enough knots now without getting the states involved in negotiations. We got rid of our first try at a constitution, the Articles of Confederation.

The Supremacy Clause...

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."​

... was no mistake. The Founders quickly abandoned Confederation as unworkable. They didn't give up on federalism.

Have you studied the history around why we changed?

I think we have too much bureaucracy, not too much wealth redistribution. We're replacing folks earning a living and having the means to look after themselves with government programs. Your solution seems to be leaving the injustice in the way the economic/political system works and folks to fend for themselves.

I also taught economics, computer science and business startups to high school students and adults, leading me to conclude your approach won't have much support from workers falling out of the middle class.

 

The Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is.

 

No the constitution speaks for itself. The words are clear. The Supreme Court interprets it through a political lens. The constitution has been corrupted over the decades. Certainly you understand that. You taught American history.

 

And it makes sense. The enumerated powers of federal government should supercede those of the states. Otherwise they would be powerless powers.

As far as I know the 17th amendment occurred because people wanted to take the power from their state governments. It had to be a political or corruption thing. I think it was a mistake. The electorate isn't very good at HR.

My problem with wealth redistribution is that it flies in the face of the concept of equality. States should be treated the same just as people should be treated the same. When government chooses sided, we have corruption.

I agree with that. I am in a minority of a very few, perhaps a minority of one. That doesn't change my mind, however.

 

The Supremacy Clause is also there for creating uniform policies across states.

I think they should have abolished the Senate.

We already had government choosing the side of capital and against workers with the like of restrictions on collective bargaining. This is the result...

 

Unless we set aside Marbury vs. Madison, the Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is.

 

No, it says what says. They interpret it to meet legal and political goals. I don't question their power to do it. I do question their sanity.

 

Yes for their consitutional duties. Its purpose is not to allow government to get out of its lane.

Bad idea. It would make legislation easier. I don't think anybody thinks that is good. Legislation should be difficult because of its far reaching effects.

If you owned a company would you be working to allow your employees to run things? How about government where both parties are on the same side of collective bargaining? I could tell you stories about collective bargaining and its results but not here. It has some benefits to society and some negatives. It even has some benefits and negatives for businesses.