Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
- Thread starter
- #161
In the Coffee Shop, we have nicknamed him "Stat". As we don't talk politics there, I have no idea whether he is a 'Statist" LOL.
But. . .kudos to him for a great post.
And in rebuttal that the Air Force is not technically Constitutional, I believe a very strong case could be made that it is even for a Constitutional originalist as myself.
The Founders certainly had no intent to disallow new technologies or better ways of doing things. Their sole focus was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people and saw that as the government's role. And they sought to limit the federal government's role beyond what was necessary to protect those rights, provide the common defense, and provide sufficient regulation and services to allow the several states to function as one strong nation.
Not only is the Air Force not mentioned specifically in the Constitution but neither are the Marines or Coast Guard or the Corps of Engineers. But the Constitution does mention naval services and both the Marines and Coast Guard originated with and evolved from the Navy and naval tradition. The Corps of Engineers originated in the Army of none other than General George Washington so its roots are squarely in the Army tradition.
And the first airplanes and pilots utilized by the U.S. military were all Army who eventually designated this new growing capability as The Army Air Force until FDR, by executive order in 1942, dubbed it the U.S. Air Force. But its roots are entirely constitutional.
It is far easier to make an argument for why these military installations are constitutional than it is to justify education, welfare, healthcare, etc. as constitutionally authorized federal programs. In my opinion the Founders would have then and now declared the military operations to be constitutionally federal and all the rest should be consigned to the states via the 10th Amendment.
Thank you for posting. We'll ignore you-know-who if he shows his face.
You've mentioned several places where the fed is involved (education) where I think we see little value for what we pay for.
I can recall in the 70's being in grade school and the teacher even then telling us that the Scottsdale, AZ school district was forced to use text books it's parents did not want because if they didn't....they would lose significant funding.
Are there areas that you see as being a stretch (not mentioned in the constitution) where we might want federal involvement.
I would have to give that some thought. If there are such areas, they are very few and far between. Providing the common defense can include such a broad definition and I don't see it as necessarily defending us against an invading army but also against terrorist attacks or biological or other hazards that we have no reasonable way to recognize and defend ourselves. Does illegal immigration fall into that category? Possibly. I haven't thought that through all the way either. Even NASA can be justified as critical to the national defense even as it benefits us in many other ways.
But something that is not included in and was never intended to be a federal function by the Founders? Those are not negotiable with me. I don't want the federal government involved in charity of any kind to anybody unless it is to distribute what the states and individual people voluntarily contribute. I don't want the federal government involved in education in any capacity other than as a central information gathering and dispensing agency in the interest of promoting the general welfare. I don't want the federal government involved in healthcare other than enforcing RICO and antitrust laws that would keep unscrupulous entities from harmful business practices that impact society as a whole.
The scope of what the federal government should be allowed to do should be specific and very narrow. The scope of the 10th Amendment should be very very broad and all encompassing.
Here is one to chew on...it is just a concept.
I would like to legitimize Social Security in a different form. I would not want to privatize it, but I would want it watched over by a non-government entity and I would want the trust fund subjected to banking laws. I would also limit what the federal government could borrow based on their balance sheet.
It would be a defined contribution, not a defined benefit. If you run out, you go on welfare (and your family can help with that bill).
That way you have an account. You know how much you put in and how much you've taken out. You could meet a minimum or keep going (and open up to different investment options). But you will have a minimum.
We'd get rid of unemployment insurance and that money would go into your trust fund account.
Lose your job....S.S will pay you benefits.
You are 80 years old and have stage 4 lung cancer. You want Medicare to pay 300,000 to treat you. No way....got 300,000 in your account...think about it.
If you die, you bequeath that money to heirs into their accounts which shores them up.
When you hit a minimum amount you can quit.
Deadbeat dad...don't want to pay child support...that's O.K. we know where to get the funds (and don't look to much for retirement...we'll put you on welfare and you'll be safe, warm and fed in a ward with 20 others like you).
*********************
This might need a different thread.
I'd like to see this codified (portable pensions) via the amendment process.
Right now, it is an mess. It has been a political football that is out of control and has no champion who will make the tough choices.