Joshua Daniels wrote:
> un·con·sti·tu·tion·al adj not consistent with or according to a
> constitution; contrary to the U.S. Constitution
>
> in other words, something is unconstitutional when it transgresses, or is
> antithetical to, doctrines spelled forth in a constitutional document.
Right so far. And since the Tenth Amendment clearly states "the powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people", that means that if it's
not listed in Article I, Section 8 and the federal government does it,
then the government is violating the Constitution -- performing an
unconstitutional act.
It is the Tenth Amendment that makes all federal involvement in
education, charity, retirement programs, medicine, etc.
unconstitutional. None of these activities are authorized by the
Constitution. The correct response to that situation, if you think the
federal government should be involved in those areas (I don't), is to
amend the Constitution ... not to ignore it (as has been the common
practice in Washington at least since the New Deal).
> For
> instance, there is nothing in the US or Tennessee constitutions that
> explicitly gives me the right to wear turkey basters as earrings (not that I
> would want to), but since that action doesn't transgress anything in the
> constitution it would not be considered unconstitutional -- Same with Tenn
> Care.
Ah, now you have strayed from the path of understanding. You are
equating your personal freedom of action with that of the government.
Nothing could have less in common than your right to wear turkey basters
and the government's (nonexistent) "right" to operate TennCare.
The fundamental principle here is that only individuals have rights.
Government, an artificial entity created by "We the People", has no
rights. It only has a limited set of powers that the people
(individuals acting together for their mutual security) delegate to it
via the constitutions/chartering documents (depending on what level of
government we are talking about, from D.C. all the way down to your city
council). Government taking on powers not delegated to it is usurpation
of authority, and it is truly sad that we put up with so much of that.
America was a better and freer place when the Constitution still meant
something (specifically, what it says) to all of us.
You, as an individual, have the right to do *anything* that doesn't
infringe on the equal rights of others. Including things that others
may think are stupid, like wearing turkey basters as earrings. Even
things that are self-destructive, like smoking cigarettes. What you
*don't* have the right to do is make others participate in, or pay for,
the activities you participate in by your free choice.
You have the right to smoke, the right to ruin your health by doing so
over a period of time, and the right to visit a doctor for treatment of
the ills it causes you ... but not the right to make me or anyone else
pay for your medical bills. That infringes on our rights. Neither the
state nor federal constitution authorizes you to make the government
(ultimately, me and every other taxpayer) pay for your medical bills.
If it's not explicitly authorized in the constitution, it's not
authorized, period.
Government has no rights; it only has the powers we confer on it and the
power to provide health care for everyone is not one of those. You may
think that omission regrettable, and you may think it a good thing that
politicians have ignored the federal and state constitutions in creating
TennCare. I don't think it is ever a good thing to ignore
constitutional limitations, regardless of how much good we think it may do.
Harold Climer wrote:
> What is the government for anyway? IMHO It is to protect and further the agenda of those unable to do certain things for themselves.
The purpose of government is to protect our rights and property. We
have police and a court system to protect us against our neighbors who
might harm us (domestic threats), firefighters and other emergency
workers to protect us and our property against natural (and some
man-made) disasters, and a military to protect us against foreign
threats. Just about everything else is (or should be) up to us to do
for ourselves, or by *voluntary* charity, to do for our neighbors who
are less fortunate. There are few things (if anything) more noble than
voluntarily helping a fellow human being; but coerced charity is not
charity at all.
> More freedom means more responsibilities too.
Exactly. To the extent we are free, *we* are responsible for ourselves
and our families. For example, if I am sick or my spouse or child is
sick, I am responsible for getting them medical care, and paying for it.
And to the extent that we absolve ourselves of those responsibilities
by allowing some outside entity (for example, government) to take them
over for us, we are less free. Thus the thrust of the article I
originally posted: More taxation (which enables more government
takeover of things that *should* be individual responsibilities) = less
freedom.
Mike Russell wrote:
> More than one analysis has found Tennessee ranks at or near the bottom among the 50 states for local tax burden.
That's good news, even if all it means is that Tennessee is less
socialist than most of the other states. All 50, and especially the
federal government, are far too socialist for my preference. America
once was a nation of free, self-reliant individualists who nonetheless
were incredibly generous in helping their fellow man. Now the
prevailing attitude is "the government will fix the problem." In
reality it fixes very few problems, but causes many more (mainly due to
the care and feeding of immense bureaucracy).
> It is also patently ridiculous to point out that TennCare is unconstitutional.
No, it is patently factual. See the 10th Amendment (mentioned above).
> If one is to define as unconstitutional anything not specifically listed in the U.S. or Tennesee constitutions,
Yep! That's the definition, alright.
> there are many things that could go off the books including NASA, the interstate highway system
Actually that last one is probably ok. "Post offices and post roads"
are authorized by Article I, Section 8. Highways are used to haul the
mail, and the interstate system was created in part for military reasons
(its technical name is the National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways). NASA is more questionable. To the extent that space
exploration serves a military purpose, one could argue that it is
constitutional; but civilian space exploration should IMHO be privatized
as I can find no specific justification for Congress funding it. If we
wanted space exploration to be a government function, then we should
have amended the Constitution to authorize it. Besides, private
enterprise does a better and more efficient job in this area as in most
others (see Space Ship One, etc.)
> Medicare, Social Security,
Clearly unconstitutional, and proof that FDR and LBJ were two of the
worst presidents we've had. The Constitution didn't mean a thing to
either of them except as a hurdle to be jumped over to do what they
wanted to do. And now we are stuck with the bills for these insolvent
systems. (If a private insurance company ran its business exactly like
Social Security, its officers would be in prison for operating a Ponzi
scheme.)
> national and state park systems
Probably better run by private environmental groups like the Sierra
Club, Tennessee River Gorge Trust, etc. even if they were constitutional.
> There is a plethora of other services that even some of our most right-wing ideologues
Eek. I hope no one thinks of me as right-wing. I'm a libertarian; I
don't identify with the "right" any more than I do with the "left". I
don't want the government controlling my personal life any more than I
want it controlling my wallet. All I want the government to do is
follow the Constitution, protect my rights and property, and leave me
alone to enjoy peace and freedom.
> would hesitate to eliminate by strict constructionism (a literal reading of the constitution).
Just curious, when you give your students specific, written instructions
in plain English (say on a test or an assignment), do you expect them to
follow those instructions or to ignore them and make up the rules as
they go along? Personally, I expect them to follow instructions and if
they don't (particularly if they do something not authorized like using
notes during a closed-book, closed-notes test), they are penalized.
Likewise, we the people gave the government specific instructions in the
form of our state and federal constitutions, and yes, as a citizen I
expect those instructions to be followed as written. If we "outgrow"
the specific instructions (something that seldom if ever truly happens)
or feel the need to add to or subtract from them, there is a process of
amendment that was put in place specifically for that reason. Amending
the instructions is one thing (and not to be undertaken lightly);
ignoring them is quite another (and just plain wrong).
> Well, those who are so adamant in resisting states' power to tax should not be on the payroll of the state of Tennessee.
Gee, so much for collegiality. I have disagreed with any number of
people on this campus on any number of issues, but I'm pretty sure that
is the first time a colleague has suggested showing me to the door. And
here I thought that a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions was one of
the functions of a university. I guess only certain viewpoints are
politically correct and if someone doesn't agree with the principle of
"tax us more so we can solve all the world's problems" then they need to
go. Sorry, though, I think I'll stick around ... the citizens need to
keep a few libertarian (and conservative, though that is not how I label
myself) watchdogs on campus rather than abandoning it completely to
socialists.
Leigh Wilson wrote:
> What is the problem with a flat tax?
Well, if you have to have some sort of tax to pay for state functions
that are actually authorized by the constitution, then a flat tax is
preferable to a progressive tax (charging people more just because they
have more, a blatantly unfair practice). We have a flat tax now in TN;
it is called a sales tax and everyone pays the same rate. Rich people
still pay more because they spend more (even though they tend to make
less use of state services), but at least everyone pays the same rate
and everyone pays something. Which is important, since then everyone
has a stake in ensuring the efficient and cost-effective conduct of
state business.
The problem with a "flat" income tax is that it is not really flat
unless it applies starting with the first dollar of income. Anytime you
have a standard exemption or any kind of deductions, then some people
will pay nothing or next to nothing, which means they have no stake in
limiting government. And I think that is a very bad thing. We should
all have an interest in holding government accountable.
Also, any sort of income tax results in mounds of paperwork for every
working individual (much worse if you are self-employed) and a
government bureaucracy that has to know everything about everyone in
order to monitor compliance. Given the horrible example of the IRS at
the federal level, how could anyone want to institute that same sort of
antagonistic agency in TN? I say eliminate the IRS and the federal
income tax, downsize the federal government to its constitutional limits
and we wouldn't even have to replace the income tax with a national
sales tax (though that would be at least a slightly better scenario than
what we have now).
Again, your mileage may vary and even if you disagree, I don't think you
should have to leave :)
--
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want
is also big enough to take away everything you have." -- Senator Barry
Goldwater
|
