Omega
Post by beth on Feb 6, 2017 1:17:32 GMT -5
"Just wondering Beth, what does being a hard core Constitutionalist have to do with this issue."
and Jessiealan told you what she thought. That WAS her point. Anybody can join the conversation. I thought she gave you a pretty good answer. Maybe Beth will reply tomorrow.
The Constitution of the United States is an agreement between the States (each representing their own and singular people). That is because each of those States already had their own Constitutions as States, and in the Treaty of 1723 (the peace treaty between Great Briton and the American States Under the “Articles Of Confederation” in Paris). In Article One of this international agreement each of these States were each named and recognized as Free, Independent, and Sovereign. This was important because internationally each was recognized Independent. To the extent of the minimal limits of the Articles of Confederation they were essentially independent agents and their citizens were citizens of each of their individual States.
While this worked well during war time, it didn’t work well in peace time. At this point time looking back, some people probably feel today that coming together was a logical and simple thing to do. It wasn’t and many books have been written about those challenges, However, two things stand out. One is that these were thirteen different cultures and coming together would be no easy task, most significantly because not all of them wanted to do so. The other thing is that they had a common concern about a powerful central government and some would have rather gone their own way than to allow that to happen. Little was delegated to the new central government and most was delegated to the individual States and their localities.
There are many issues which can be discussed of that Founding period and one is that the Constitution of the United States can be view as an agreement, a form of a contract. As with any such contract it is viewed and interpreted in the meanings of words and phrases as in common use at the time of signing or ratification and new meanings do not change those original meanings. Yes, it can be changed but only within the concepts of change as written and ratified within the agreement. Any other change process means that there is no agreement and therefore no Constitution. Within that agreement the functions of the federal government were define as the Delegated Powers and the exclusions.
In truth, there is no Delegated Power to initiate federal control or involvement as to healthcare for the people. If the people want such healthcare to come from the Federal Government, they can have it at any time, simply follow the Amendment Process of Article V of the Constitution. Without that does it mean that there can be no governmental involvement in healthcare? Absolutely not, such healthcare can come from the State governments and/or from the people themselves. That is Constitutional, that is legal.
What appears to be lost in recent years, is the correct function and purpose of the Constitution which is the definition of the structure of government. It is not about all the benefits that people might get, I’ll say again, It is not about all the benefits that people might get, it is specifically about the structure of government, the federal government. These Founding concepts began to change with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement, with that the importance of the Constitution has waned.
Some apparently consider to call others hard core Constitutionalists is a pejorative assertion. However, that is incorrect, as first, the term is simply Constitutionalist, and then secondly to be a Constitutionalist is a worthy designation, something of which to be proud. I wonder what one not supportive of the Constitution would termed?
I have always wondered why people found the Constitution to be so alien that they could not accept it as the Founders wrote and ratified it. The structure of government has changed very little (27 times) during the years. That is part of its strength. To wail and moan that the amendment process is too long and complex, is, again, is to misunderstand the Constitution, as such changes are meant to be slow and difficult to be successfully ratified. Otherwise the Constitution is destroyed as being merely a process of serving the latest need. Usually a need which can be served other ways. Generally these ways fall under the Legislative process. It is when the goal of some issue is attempted outside of Constitutional legality, such as this recent Affordable Healthcare effort will not fit the needs of the people, as it will help some, hurt others and, as a federal government project will see costs increase.
Health care can be accomplished through the States and there is no need for anyone to go without healthcare, but there is no need for the federal government to be involved.
So for me I am happy to be a Constitutionalist.
I apologize for not replying. I somehow managed to miss it.
Now, I'll just tag onto Jessie's reply. She expressed my thought along with her own without knowing it.
When the time comes this country puts every nuance .. every crossed T and ditted i before the American people, we should know we've turned onto a wrong path at some point.
Still hoping for the best with all the other optimists.