Agreed PlainOl', and Obama's vision for America far outreaches building a few roads, food inspection and a weather satellite or two.....
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]>wrote: > Obama inadvertently presented us with his view of the role of > government: > We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are > still things we need to pay for as a country -- things like new roads > and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to > veterans and medical research. > --- > Obama is a socialist and needs to be removed from our government asap > by any means necessary. > > > On Aug 1, 3:00 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > President Obama on the Role of Governmentby Laurence M. Vance, August 1, > 2011 > > In hisspeechlast week from the East Room of the White House to the > American people on deficit reduction and debt-ceiling negotiations, > President Obama inadvertently presented us with his view of the role of > government:We all want a government that lives within its means, but there > are still things we need to pay for as a country -- things like new roads > and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans > and medical research.Many times when someone, and especially a politician, > says “we” he really means “I,” and is just trying to make it look like many > others share his particular point of view. But I believe that when the > president said that “we all want” a government that will do these things he > was correct. The view that the federal government should build new roads and > bridges, design, build, and launch weather satellites, perform food > inspections, provide services to veterans, and undertake or fund medical > research is widely held by most members of Congress, government bureaucrats, > politicians of both parties, Americans of all political persuasions, and > federal contractors who benefit from these things. > > Philosophical arguments against the federal government’s doing these > things because they violate the principle of limited government have always > been made by libertarians and occasionally been made by conservatives. > > Although not discounting the importance of these philosophical arguments, > there is a simple way to show that role of the federal government is a > limited one that does not extend to paying for roads and bridges, weather > satellites, food inspection, medical research, and most services to veterans > as envisioned by the president. > > Often blatantly violated or quietly ignored, even as it is held up as the > authority in all matters relating to the government, the Constitution -- > certainly neither a perfect nor a libertarian document -- is nevertheless > central to the president’s assertions of the proper role of the federal > government. > > All members of Congress, the ones who appropriate taxpayer money to pay > for every new federally funded road and bridge, weather satellite, food > inspection, service to veterans, and medical research, take the following > oath of office:I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support > and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, > foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the > same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or > purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties > of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.The president, > the one who signs into law all congressional appropriations bills, takes the > following oath of office:I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will > faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to > the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the > United States.So, what does the Constitution say about roads, bridges, > weather satellites, food inspection, services to veterans, and medical > research? Very little if it says anything at all. Article I, section 8 of > the Constitution grants power to the federal government to do certain things > in eighteen very brief paragraphs. > > On food inspection and medical research the Constitution is silent. > Clearly, then, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to > perform or fund food inspections or undertake or fund medical research. The > federal government shouldn’t have anything to do with food inspections or > medical research for the simple reason that the government shouldn’t have > anything to do with any inspections or research. But this prohibition goes > even deeper than this. The federal government has no authority to subsidize > farmers, issue nutrition guidelines, make food pyramids, promote or demonize > certain foods, ban unpasteurized dairy products, regulate food production > and labeling, or encourage healthy eating. And neither does the federal > government have the authority to require medical licensing, regulate medical > schools, restrict organ sales or donations, mandate and/or provide > vaccinations, fund HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives, monitor the manufacture > and sale of medical devices, regulate the medical insurance industry, or > fund anyone’s health care or medical treatment. > > The closest thing in the Constitution to the federal government’s having > the authority to build new roads and bridges is the power of Congress in > Article I, section 8, paragraph 7, to “establish post offices and post > roads.” This is certainly not what President Obama meant by “new roads and > bridges.” The president was referring to what used to be called “internal > improvements.” In the early years of the country, there was great debate > between the advocates of centralized government and supporters of > decentralized government. Centralizers favored Henry Clay’s “American > System” of protectionist tariffs (mercantilism), centralized banking > (inflation), and internal improvements (corporate welfare, subsidies to > politically favored businesses, and wasteful and inefficient federal > public-works boondoggles). > > President James Madison vetoed an “internal improvements” bill in 1817 > because he considered it unconstitutional:I am not unaware of the great > importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, > and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be > exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that > such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that > it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude > of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that > the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of > powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate > landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of > Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my > signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects > may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and > virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form > and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable > mode of improving it as experience might suggest.Obviously, weather > satellites weren’t in existence when the Constitution was written, but if > the Constitution doesn’t even authorize the federal government to make > important internal improvements like constructing canals, roads, and > bridges, then it certainly doesn’t sanction government weather satellites. > > That federal government should provide services to the nation’s veterans > on the surface seems reasonable. After all, there are six paragraphs in > Article I, section 8, of the Constitution that relate in some way to the > military: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;The problem with most of the services > provided by the government to veterans is that there shouldn’t be the need > for such services in the first place. Nowhere does the Constitution > authorize the United States to go abroad searching for monsters to destroy > or otherwise fight foreign wars. And certainly not undeclared, immoral, and > senseless military adventures like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We > shouldn’t have tens of thousands of veterans with PTSD, traumatic brain > injuries, missing limbs, severed spinal cords, or third-degree burns. We > shouldn’t have veterans killing themselves and others. We shouldn’t have > veterans who can’t hold down a job. We should have veterans who can’t > function in society. We shouldn’t have veterans with broken families. The > services required by veterans would be greatly diminished if the military > were used strictly in the defense of the United States. > > Although President Obama was right, the fact that “we” want the federal > government to build our roads, keep us informed about the weather, inspect > our food, service our veterans, and fund our medical research doesn’t mean > that it is proper or constitutional for the government to do so. And as > President Gerald Ford said in an address to a joint session of Congress: “A > government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big > enough to take from you everything you have.” > http://www.fff.org/comment/com1108b.asp > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
