I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

- de Tocqueville 1831































Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Original Intent?

During the town hall meetings last year, it was asked of our representatives and sentators, "Where in the Federal Constitution is it written that the government should run our health care system?"  This is a valid question,  a just question,  a question that is overdue in the asking.  What begs to be asked is what other programs have been started and run by the Federal government that is not enumerated by the Constitution?  Arguably, Social Security,  Medicare,  Medicaid and hundreds of other programs, subsidies and mandates are not in the purview of the Constitution.  Would we be better off if these programs did not exist?  Are there programs that would best be run by the Fed that is not enumerated in the constitution?  I will share my viewpoint in my next post, but I wanted to hear from others first.

6 comments:

Kerri said...

I believe the Constitution is an inspired document written by inspired men of God. It contains basic rights for all "citizens" of the United States of Amercia. And just as the basic laws given to Moses don't run out of steam (or fashion) because they were given more than 2,000 years ago, neither does the Constitution. It is not a *living document* to be tampered with as the liberal (and perhaps conservative) judges deem beneficial for whatever agenda they are pursuing at the moment.

You and I have discussed the issue of charitable programs being run by the Feds. Although our Constitution has a "general welfare", the explanation is clear in the words of two great men.

James Madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

These programs currently run by the Feds - Medicaid/care, Social Security and now a possible universal health care system, among others, have no place in the Federal government. The care of citizens in this arena should begin within the churches and communities and when those resources are stretched to the max (which in seriously difficult economic times they can be) then the individual state should step in. But allowing the Feds to take our tax dollars and hold them hostage to disperse as they desire (hey, an extra million if you agree to vote for me next time) and do what THEY please with them, is flat out a violation of the Constitution.

On that note, my brain has fried from lack of sleep and a stressful week and I've done all I can for today. I'm off to bed hoping this made sense and my spelling is correct.

rocslinger said...

Good job Kerri, I do wonder though if placing these important entitlement programs in the hands of private concerns and state and local governments would allow people to slip through the cracks. Would an athiest for example be able to get help from the churches. Maybe the federal government needs to mandate that all get help from charitable organizations equally?

Kerri said...

Of course, I disagree that the Federal government should have any say whatsoever in these matters, but charity should not only be coming from churches. Look around. How very many charitable organization exist that are not related to a religious organization? There are plenty. And on the other side of that - have you ever known, for example, our church's humanitarian efforts to be denied to anyone or area because of a differing belief system? I think not. Nor should that be the case of ANY faith-based organization.

goddessdivine said...

Remember when a reporter asked that very question to Nancy Pelosi? She laughed in his face. Unbelievable. These empty suits are so out of touch with what is constitutional.

And to answer your question(s): No, the Constitution does NOT cover all this extra garbage.

rocslinger said...

Goddessdevine,
Thanks for playing. Do you mind if I just call you Goddess or Devine? I have my next post ready it just needs to be edited by my wife, she makes me look so brilliant. :)

goddessdivine said...

You can call me whatever you want....as long as it's not an expletive. ;-)

Actually, GD works too....