Rather than answer this question, I think it would be an excellent exercise for you to figure out the historical context of the constitution, how it was ratified, what the Founder's said in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to ensure states ratified - they promised the various Clauses were only to provide some small extra coverage for Congress to weakly expand its powers to meet it's enumerated powers. Read the enumerated powers. Google the issue and look within the context of all of the above and that will answer your question. Congress was NEVER INTENDED BY THE FOUNDERS to have anything near the power they have today and the constitution does NOT give the SCOTUS the right the impart upon Congress powers not enumerated to it in the constitution.
This is a very easy question to figure out. When 70% of the population does not want a bill and it passes anyway, then power is being abused by a few elites. Sound familiar? Our sovereignty lies in the states and the people, in Britain today and during the RW it lay in the government. This makes it easy to abuse power and our Founder's saw that and rectified it when our government was formed. In the United States of America anyone who does not understand that the government derives is power from the people either is completely unaware of the constitution or listening to the liberal echo chamber that believes the document is something it is not.
Fine, if you want it, you got it. Republican's stand to pick up the House and possibly the Senate. When Obama is gone, I hope the Republicans give you a taste of what it is like to have bills shoved down your throat come hell or high water. Backroom deals and complete lack of transparency. Maybe then you will take the time to look up and understand what the word Statist means and why both parties are guilty of this false belief in federal supremacy. Maybe then you will take the time to read the
Tenth Amendment Center and find out why the constitution has been trampled on by BOTH parties, but why Obama and his ilk are sh*tting on the document.
*Sigh*
Lets not go into this with a Poly Sci major, shall we?
The reach of the constitution expounds as it is a laving document. The check and balance system is delicate in the sense that each forefather wanted something different. Some, well, the vast majority wanted us to have a King, and the stand alone against that was Washington when he took the position of president, and sat down creating president. Initially the congress was to be more or less a gathering ground for the elite to have a voice in public policy. This evolved over time just as the role of president, vice president, house, senate, and constitution. Infact, the constitution never even creates a definate congress or court system in totality. It is and always was a combination of loose yet direct ideals to control the country, which were established by the intention of several different interests. Remember, the forefathers were businessmen, politicians, lawyers, and innovators. They all had different wants based upon industry and ideals. On several issues the forefathers strongly disagreed upon, making the living document subject to whom was in power in terms of control of legislative branch and executive branch.
The forefathers wanted to select a 'King/President' and have the Senate as place to have elite influence as aforementioned. The electoral college is the was to ensure they have a say. Joe Blow cant run for office, and even so, some individuals have a greater say over the political process than the vast of the country. If you want to stick with the outline and use the constitution and powers as a non-living document we would have slavery, a King, no Supreme Court, and if I dare say, not be a country. If we remember the great depression, the very same Enumerated powers were expounded to grant the very same programs which got us out of the depression and allowed FDR to order the production of weaponry in response to the get americans to work programs, which were used in WWII. Its not a stretch to say if not for the expansion of powers of each branch we would not be a country today. Some connections are direct, others non-direct, but history shows that the constitution needed to change and adapt to meet the current problems.
Back to this issue, Congress has the ability to tax and regulate commerce. It is a stretch, but is a view and read of the constitution. You can say the democrats are doing this for the first time and its unconstitutional, but as far as party's go, the conservative Supreme Court ruled the Bush v Gore case against the constitution, stating the constitution gave them the ability to rule differently than the constitution grants. The Supreme Court was given structure after the constitution was created by the executive branch, thusly was granted its ability's based upon the executive branch's reach, not the constitution. Catch-22, no?
Back to your 70% number, this is out of the spin of the right wing. The individual mandates are supported by the vast majority of americans, and most feel they do not go far enough. Heck, many republican candidates voted down the bill, call it unconstitutional and then adopt the singular elements of the bill and call them original ideas. Break the bill down, americans like it. Political spin is what is influencing public opinion.
This same idealism of going against expansion of the rights of government is the same issue which sprung de-regulation. Anti-Trust laws, Fair Housing, ect. Mitt Romney created a very simular health care plan as Governor of MA and this was not opposed being called unconstitutional. This is simply political objective to slander one party.
Back to your central argument, about the reach of the rights of people and states. This is a subject the forefathers were split over. State vs National rights were never agreed upon, and thats how the Senate and Congress took shape, to please both political view points. As for it being for the people, as aforementioned, the forefathers really intended it to be for the 'Rich White Elite' as justly reinforced by the structure of the Electoral College, Redistricting, and Voter tests/requirements. It is very hard to argue that you are correct when you impose your view point upon that of people who were so opposed to that belief that they were willing to not form a nation over despite the overwhelming issues with their home nation.
I need to divulge deeper into the reasons behind the forefathers rebelling, the real economic interests, the lack of real input by the vast majority of americans, ect. But leaving the history review as it is, I want to discuss my opinion.
The constitution is a living document according to the vast majority of the historical community and of the constitutional historians. The few who disagree do not refute the needed expansion of the constitution in the past. It seems you want to argue this point over the political lines. Thats fine as the conservative party is strongly influenced by a traditional moralistic approach and shares the beliefs of conservative forefathers, but it ends at that, a belief. If you do not agree with the policy, argue that, but calling it not constitutional based upon the opinion of only some of the forefathers is no real way to prove such an opinion is accurate, especially when all the forefathers left some areas of the constitution to develop over life, such as the need and expansion of powers.
The last sentiment I will leave this with is consider these two men: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Two of the most influential men in respect to the formation of the United States of America. They had different opinions on many issues which was the reason for the creation of the modern political party structure. Both have different policies which were later adopted into the constitution. Neither were 100% correct in retrospect of application and longevity of a country. Neither of these men were in agreement on serious issues. Stating that the forefathers, who were so divided to create political parties, had your opinion is more than false, but an incorrect interpretation of history.
opcorn:
)] Can't wait to see him out!!!!!!
