So, there you are having a conversation with a pro-big -government type and he is arguing that the Federal Government should get involved in your life in some way. It really doesn’t matter what the discussion is about because the Feds have no business in your personal life. Call it health insurance or schools or whatever. You try to make that point, but your not getting far because you can’t come up with any time that the Feds have been messing with someone you know. So, you want to whip out the slippery slope argument, but your afraid he’s just going to call you paranoid. It’s OK, just because your paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t coming after you.

Try asking a few questions just to get a feel for how your big-gov pal really feels about a government getting in their backyard. Here’s a few to get started. “Do you think the Fed should regulate farming?” (Obvious answer, but you are putting him in a comfortable mood.) “Should the Fed regulate ALL farming?” (again expect an affirmative answer, but if he strays, he’s going in the direction you want anyway.) “Should people be allowed to eat what they grow?” (Duh.) “So, if you have a garden and eat what you grow, should the Feds regulate what you grow even if you never sell it?” (If they haven’t said no, reiterate that this is food and is for you and your family and no one else, and that you are not talking about during times of war. By this time, he should be wondering where you are going with this. Good, we’re getting there.) “Let’s say that the Government decides to fix the price of food, for the public good of course, and part of the bill that regulates the price of the food and regulates how much money farmers earn, for their own good of course, also allows the Feds to monitor, regulate, and fine you for non-compliance for just growing yourself some food. Are you OK with the Feds fining you for growing your own food?” (You’ll probably have to repeat that last bit a couple of times.)

If you are speaking with someone that actually believes that it is just fine for the Federal Government to impose penalties on individuals for growing a garden, you can try making the state’s rights versus Federal Government case, but the wall behind him is more likely to be persuaded. At this point, your best bet is just try to get some understanding behind why he thinks command/control totalitarian governments are better and give up on reasoning your way through a debate. You can’t win against faith based arguments.

If, on the other hand, you are talking to someone that sees that bureaucrats  in Washington D.C. should not concern themselves with an individual’s garden, you are almost ready to go for the kill. With a bit of luck or persuasion, your adversary should be calling you paranoid (yes, we want this now). If not, keep digging. Make the case a little by saying that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Federal Congress could seize that control. Now throw in that even if you had already planted and grown your garden, so long as you haven’t harvested yet, the law would not be retroactive.  So, the Feds could control price, the pay for farmers, and how much food is grown by whom. All because of economic conditions, not war.

We are looking for him to say something like; “That’s never going to happen.” If you can get there, you win because it already has. And it was upheld by the Supreme Court.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended in May1941 (before we entered the war), allows for exactly what was described above for wheat and other named foods. Now you may not grow wheat. And it is true that under certain rules, a small farm could be exempted from fines (although not regulation). The logic behind supporting this legislation is that if you don’t buy your food on the open market, that loss in the marketplace affects the price of goods, and therefore, the Interstate Commerce Clause gives authority. So the only question left for your hapless foe is; “What else do you not buy that the Government may want to know about?”

Lest anyone think that this was some obscure case back in the forties that only applied to large farms. It has been used as precedent to regulate what is grown inside people’s houses this quite recently. The Supreme Court has ruled (2005) that the Federal Government may regulate certain plants (marijuana) even though state law makes possession and consumption legal. Overriding state medical use laws, the Feds can enter your house and arrest you even if your state has changed its laws to reflect the will of the body politic. Although the original offending law was passed and held constitutional during a time of economic depression, 2005 was no such time. You may be considering that the 05 decision was the Court and not Congress. True, but that only goes to show that we must be very careful what gets passed when conditions are right to take steps toward oppression. The original case came before the Court because of a law. Many years later, the Feds use the same law (or the court precedent that directly resulted from the law) to empower the Federal Government and reduce not only state’s rights, but individual’s as well.

Here at AmendmentX.info we try not to speculate more than… well,  some. But it is difficult to imagine the person who is pro government  wanting one government that they can’t control (Federal, because other states get a voice too) overriding the state law they just fought for and going to jail for smoking pot they thought was legal. Perhaps these people forget that the Feds do more than just give away other people’s money.

We don’t have to  guess where all slippery slopes lead. The end of the road for big government is your living room.

AX

Article 1 § 8 of the Constitution allows the Congress the power to “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ” among many other things. This is of course is the opening to the Powers of Congress section.  Note that this section of the Constitution was of great importance and focus of the construction process. Because this section empowers the new Federal Government with enormous power of the Union, special care was taken to ensure the proper phraseology. As with the rest of the document, succinctness was extremely important so as to not give rise to misinterpretation due to an overabundance of legalese.

Reading the passage in a natural way, there are three major parts; what, why, and a caveat. The what is funding, the why is what the money is spent on, and the caveat is a limitation on how the money is collected.

Assuming that the Congress hasn’t had too many problems taxing (although an amendment was later added to increase their ability to collect more), we will skip that portion of the passage. How that money is spent has been a source of great debate. The focus of this post will be limited to the General Welfare Clause.

The welfare clause juxtaposition to the defense clause is more than coincidental. Welfare is defined by Merriam-Webster as 1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity. So, “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” begins to gain meaning. Common defense is easy to define. Remembering that the Constitution was solely written to govern the Federal Government and that state is defined in all contexts other than our country as a sovereign nation, The Federal Government was established to band the several states for their protection and in doing so, maintain the strength of the New World against outside invaders. That strength necessarily means more than just militarily. Maintaining cohesion amongst the states is essential to true strength among multiple sovereigns.

The general welfare of the United States inextricably linked to common defense and once again is carefully phrased. Far from the Constitution proposing that the Federal Government should be giving money to individual citizens as “welfare checks”, this clause was specifically intended to prohibit such activity. General does not naturally mean specific or individual. The welfare (health and prosperity) is for the United States, not the individual states or citizens thereof. Remember, at the time the Constitution was written, the Federal Government was prohibited from collecting taxes directly from individuals by Article 1 § 9. The common theme throughout the document was keeping the Federal Government removed from the individual lives of the citizens as much as possible.

The introductory clauses of A1§8 were placed in front of the specific powers of Congress to explain the necessity of the following enumerated powers. That the preamble to the Constitution reflects this line of reasoning. Beyond that, Madison himself felt compelled to further iterate this point in Federalist Paper 41. (On a side note, take a look at the Second Amendment. The introductory statement gives reason to the actual restriction on infringement of arms. To illustrate the point, consider this statement; A sturdy house being necessary to protect from wolves, the right of pigs to build brick houses shall not be infringed. Would a reasonable person believe that if pigs live away from wolves they can be prohibited from building brick houses?)

After the introduction portion of §8, the rest of the section is devoted to how the Congress may procure the money to finance its various endeavors pursuant to the first part of the introduction and how to provide for the common defense and general welfare. The powers enumerated in the body effect the means for ensuring the successful defense with armies and a standing Navy as well as accommodating for the general welfare through such powers as establishing post offices and post roads, regulating the monetary system, the power to create a copyright regulatory system and others powers enumerated therein. Additionally, §9 follows up with a set of prohibitions relating directly to taxation (of various forms) and activities legislatures are wont to do that are detrimental to the general welfare (such as bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and suspension of habeas corpus).

One reason the Federal Government has been diligently trying to redefine the term general welfare (not to mention the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause) for so long is the Tenth Amendment. Because the Tenth Amendment strictly forbids the Federal Government from exercising powers not specifically enumerated in Article 1, the only way to increase power is to invent enumerated powers. With a complicit Supreme Court, those pretended powers become real.

AX

No, this has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment. What we can and must conclude from the correspondence of these global warming alarmists is that not only is their data highly suspect, but more importantly, they have rigged the peer-review process. That means that ALL of the anthropogenic global warming rhetoric must be essentially thrown out. If you believe that people are some, partially, or completely responsible for climate change (including the lack of rise in temperature over the past 11 years) you must use new data. If you are like most Amendment X readers you may be saying “Dark beer tastes better than light beer.” Also, “What about the raw data?” Well, that was thrown out once these “scientists” had manipulated the information into what they wanted. So, start over. If you have substituted global warming for religion and therefore every form of descent is heresy, your dogma likely incompatible with this blog. If on the other hand you have an open mind, you can still believe in anthropogenic global warming and embrace better, more cost effective solutions such as those proposed in the fabulous new book, Super Freakenomics. (review forthcoming)

AX

G was a mentor in our philosophy and is a contributor to many debates and should give a slightly different view on a variety of subjects. G will have occasional posts and may or may not contribute regularly. As we don’t have a regular posting schedule, this should be of little consequence. Enjoy.

AX

AX

AX

The Baucus bill creates entities without definition. For pre-existing conditions, section 2215;”(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGH RISK POOLS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall establish 1 or more high risk pools that— ‘‘(A) provide to all eligible individuals health insurance coverage (or comparable coverage) that does not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such coverage for all eligible individuals; and ‘‘(B) provide for health benefits coverage and premium rates described under subsection (b).”

OK, so this phantom pool is just a group of individuals with pre-existing conditions that get a subsidy for insurance. Well, not really. That’s only true if the subsidy stays under $5billion. If that amount is exceeded, subsection (2) applies ‘‘INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.—If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.”

The bottom line is; everyone will get what they want, unless they don’t. If you are part of the latter, which is estimated to be around 85% of the population, voting is REALLY important.

AX

AX

Obama: What’s your problem, boy?

McChrystal: Sir?

Obama: You can’t go to London and speak your mind like you did yesterday.

McChrystal: Sir, we need more troops in Afghanistan to prevent terrorist organizations from taking over.

Obama: No, we don’t. Just like I said about Iraq, we don’t need more troops to secure the country.

McChrystal: But it worked in Iraq and now we are drawing down troop levels just as predicted by supporters of that surge.

Obama: Let me be clear; I don’t like you. I don’t like the Army. I don’t like what you people do.

McChrystal: Sir, I just think we should have a plan.

Obama: We have a plan. By we, I mean Joe Biden. And by plan, I mean law enforcement.

McChrystal: With all due respect, Joe Biden is an idiot. Besides, didn’t you just stop all prosecutions of suspected terrorists?

Obama: So. I mean, no. Not stopped, just not happening now. Anyway, I inherited this problem from the previous administration.

McChrystal: What problem, sir?

Obama: All of them.

McChrystal: And you signed an Executive Order closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Obama: Yeah, like that’s gonna happen. Let me be clear, this isn’t about me; it’s about you. If I thought you were important, I would spend hours with you drinking beer. The truth is; I would disband the entire military if I thought I could get away with it. We don’t need it. We could just have a massive civilian national security force. I can just talk to the other leaders in the world and convince them that they love me. Look how well that strategy is working in Iran.

McChrystal: Sir, Iran just started testing missiles that could send nuclear weapons into Israel.

Obama: I inherited that.

McChrystal: And you shut down strategic missile defense projects.

Obama: I can fire you just like I fired your predecessor Afghanistan.

McChrystal: With all due respect, I am very good at commanding troops.

Obama: Well, I’m pretty good at throwing people around me under the bus. You’re lucky Congress keeps funding the war, because I wouldn’t.

McChrystal: What do you want me to do, sir?

Obama: Let me put my finger to in the air and see which way the political winds are blowing.

McChrystal: Does that really work?

Obama: Not so much. But that’s not important now. What is important is that I get back to campaigning. working for ACORN. giving people that need pacemakers pain killers. running an auto company. spending time in the White House. getting competition in the insurance marketplace. talking to the Dalia Lama. fulfilling my promise to cut the deficit in half. celebrating my 15th wedding anniversary. replacing the White House lawyer. stuff, you know Presidential things. Now, get out of my airplane.

AX

Although the authors took great care to make the study appear to control for many factors (such as if a person has smoked more or fewer than 200 cigarettes in their lifetime), one glaring omission is present; cause of death. With those aged between 17 and 34 comprising of 44.2% of the study group, and assuming the 49.8% male ratio holds true, cause of deaths is rather important. Males died at a 33% higher rate overall and were less likely to be insured. Black Americans were also 25% more likely to die than any other group. Mexican Americans, while only 5.5% of the group, were twice as likely and four times as likely to be uninsured as blacks and whites respectively. When a young male dies in a car crash, drug/alcohol related death, gang related death, or some other non-health related death is not removed from this type of study, the results should not be relied upon. If the authors had their way and these young, uninsured males were covered by National Health-care, they would be deaths of those WITH health care. But just as dead.

The study omits those covered by current Government care so we will limit our stupid extrapolations on from those provided by the study.  61 people die every day in this country with adequate health insurance. 99.4% of those uninsured survive every year. Former smokers are over 71% more likely to die than current smokers. Exercise has no effect on your mortality rate. Skinny people are almost twice as likely to die as the obese. Numbers can be manipulated fairly easily and starting with a defective set makes them all suspect. When counting the elderly (people covered by Medicare) just imagine how many people die while covered by government insurance.

The federal government has no business being in the insurance industry. Don’t let people from what you may think are prestigious institutions fool you with bad papers. The presentation may be first rate and you may hear politicians relay them, but it’s BS.

AX