Showing posts with label U.S. Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Constitution. Show all posts

Thursday, February 27, 2020

How to Easily and Permanently Memorize the Enumerated Powers of Congress

     The Enumerated Powers of Congress are found in the 18 clauses that make up Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. The first seventeen clauses list the legislative powers that are expressly delegated to Congress by the people. These are the issues that we allow Congress to legislate upon.
     Many Americans believe that the federal government has the power to regulate on matters such as health, education, welfare, unemployment and retirement insurance, etc.. This is simply not true, however; because, according to the 10th Amendment, all powers not granted to Congress remain vested in the states or the people.

     Programs and departments which have expanded government - like the various departments of health, education, welfare (etc.) which have existed over the years - have become part of our government, despite the fact that Congress is supposed to have nothing to do with those issues.
     These programs and departments have, for the most part, become part of our government, through unconstitutional acts of Congress, which the Supreme Court negligently failed to identify as unconstitutional. Several unconstitutional federal departments exist because the president at the time abused his "presidential reorganizational authority" to organize his cabinet, so as to pretend that he had the authority to "re-organize" whole industries and issues into the executive department.

     Neither the General Welfare Clause (Clause 1), nor the Interstate Commerce Clause (Clause 3), nor the Necessary and Proper Clause (Clause 18) permit regulation by Congress of issues not explicitly enumerated (that is, listed or named) in Article I, Section 8. Nor does Clause 17 permit the federal government to own and manage anywhere near the amount of land it currently owns. Nor do Amendments XI through XXVII of the Constitution. Nor do the "unenumerated rights" recognized in Amendment IX, denote the existence of unenumerated authorities given to the government; that's actually the exact opposite of what the 9th Amendment really means.
     The supposed needs to "promote the general welfare", "regulate interstate commerce", and do whatever is "necessary and proper", have all been used as convenient excuses to grow the government, based on intentional misreadings of the law.
     The "general welfare" doesn't mean "whatever benefits anybody in the country"; it refers to the idea that taxes and spending should be done for the benefit of well-being of all people in the country, which requires indirect taxes to be equally apportioned and direct taxes to be uniform.
     The need to "regulate interstate commerce" should not be construed to imply that the federal government may legislate on any and all matters pertaining to interstate commerce which it desires; Clause 3 only permits the Congress to keep commerce regular, meaning free from undue and unwarranted interruptions in the free flow of commerce. In fact, the federal government itself has usually been the major cause of that interruption; either through intervening in commercial affairs which pertain to solely the state itself and nobody else, or through refusing to crack down on states that give their businesses unfair advantages. by taxing their residents to subsidize their own in-state domestic commerce (and labor, jobs, and production) over the commerce of other states. This  allows a states to ignore the need to maintain America's interstate free trade compact, for the purpose of giving the state permanent rewards in the market, and increasing monopolization of the industries within it.
     The Necessary and Proper Clause was never intended to allow the federal government to do whatever it wanted to do. Its purpose is do authorize the federal government to do what is necessary and proper to execute "the foregoing powers", meaning the powers previously listed in Clauses 1 through 17. Clauses 17 and 18 don't say the federal government can take over whatever lands and buildings it needs in order to do whatever it wants; they say that the federal government only has exclusive jurisdiction over a territory less than 100 miles square, that it must purchase whatever lands it owns (and Amendment V says it must compensate owners fairly), and that the government should use whatever resources it requires, only to execute the powers vested in it under Clauses 1 through 17.

     This may be a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, but it is probably a correct one. [Note: Admittedly, I have neglected to mention several important duties of Congress which are distinct from the "4 M's, 3 T's, and 2 P's" listed below; such as trying cases of treason, trying impeachments, admitting new states to the union, and establishing election days. It is worthwhile to note that the Enumerated Powers authorize Congress to do closer to thirty-five things, rather than 17 or 18.]. This narrow interpretation of the Constitution may not "allow the federal government to do much", but that is the point.
     We have an amendment process for a reason; so that we can change the Constitution easily, but not too easily. We are not supposed to change the Constitution for "light and transient causes". It is no use begging for a vote on an unconstitutional matter, or spending a decade and trillions of dollars on unconstitutional legislation, when those efforts will eventually and inevitably be overturned by courts, vetoed by governors, or ignored by presidents.
     Strictly limiting Congress is the only way to prevent new departments from being ushered into existence in the federal government, where they can easily be taken advantage of, and perverted away from their original intentions, by administrations that either don't think the federal government should be involved in such matters, or (worse yet) by administrations that have an active disregard for the harmful activity that the department is supposed to be regulating. The George W. Bush Administration's, and Donald Trump Administration's, actions, concerning the Environmental Protection Agency, perhaps demonstrate this idea best.

     The fact that an issue or power is specifically listed in one of the clauses in Article I, Section 8, does not necessarily mean that the federal government is authorized to wield an exclusive monopoly over providing the service in question, nor does it necessarily mean that the federal government is authorized to legislate concerning any and all topics vaguely related to that issue.
     The states and the people, in most or all cases (save for the specific mention of exclusive jurisdiction over federal lands in Clause 17), still retain authority to legislate concerning the parts of the issues mentioned which are not specifically described in the language of the law.
     For example, the authority to "establish Post Roads" does not, by itself, confer a legal monopoly over the delivery of postal mail; a later Supreme Court decision did that. Also, the power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization" is arguably the Congress's only immigration-related power. It doesn't specifically say in the Constitution that the federal government has the right to decide where immigrants settle, nor whether they can be eligible for social services.
     The federal government will not have those authorities until the amendment process is utilized, to properly authorize the government to do such things.

     Even though the set of issues which the Congress can regulate, is narrow, there is still a total of seventeen separate clauses which explain what the Congress is allowed to do. Since it can be difficult to remember all seventeen clauses, here are my suggestions about what I think is the best way to memorize and simplify those seventeen things.
     When attempting to teach or memorize the Enumerated Powers, I suggest that the clauses be separated into three main categories: 1) Topics beginning with the letter M; 2) topics beginning with the letter T; and 3) topics beginning with the letter P (and, additionally, a fourth category, consisting of the final two clauses).
     In teaching the Enumerated Powers in this manner, the contents of the first sixteen clauses should be referred to as "the four M's, the three T's, and the two P's":







The Four M's:
     Military, Money, Mail, and Migration

- Clauses 11 through 16: the Military

- Clauses 5 and 6: Money

- Clause 7: Mail (post roads)

- Clause 4: Migration (uniform rule of naturalization)



The Three T's:
     Taxes, Tribes & Trade, and Tribunals

- Clauses 1 and 2: Taxes (and borrowing)

- Clause 3: Tribes & Trade (and commerce)

- Clause 9: Tribunals (and courts)



The Two P's:
     Patents and Piracies

- Clause 8: Patents (arts and science)

- Clause 10: Piracies (and felonies)



Other Clauses:

- Clause 17: Authority over lands purchased by government

- Clause 18: Enabling Clause / Necessary and Proper Clause




Read more about the Enumerated Powers of Congress
     http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/
     http://constitutioncenter.org/blog/article-1-the-legislative-branch-the-enumerated-powers-sections-8/





Written on February 27th and 28th, 2020
Published on February 28th, 2020

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Obamacare's Constitutionality and Employer Provided Health Insurance

     I will support legislation that will repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (ObamaCare), including the End the Mandate Act (H.R. 1101) and legislation similar to it.
     There are many reasons why the individual mandate to purchase insurance is not constitutional. It is not a tax on an activity; it is a penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. If the individual mandate were a tax, it would be an infinite percent tax on a zero-dollar item or transaction (i.e., the “act” of refraining from purchasing health insurance). Additionally, the exemptions that have been granted render this “mandate” not a mandate but rather a bundle of special favors; that they have been granted conflicts with the legal principle of equal protection under the law.
     Not only is the act of issuing a health insurance policy not commerce (as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869), refraining from purchasing health insurance does not even constitute trade. Without a constitutional amendment authorizing the federal government to be involved in the health care industry (except within the District of Columbia and the overseas territories), the federal government should have no role in regulating it.
     However, in 1944 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the authority to regulate insurance (i.e., keep it regular and uninhibited) in pursuance of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in order to prevent unnatural monopolies in insurance sales.
     Given this authority, and the Obama Administration's admitted desire to work with Republicans to pass legislation that effectively drives down costs but doesn't resort to mandating purchases, I believe that there are many good reasons why the federal government should end the mandate and legalize the interstate purchase of health insurance (thus allowing insurers based in states with low average insurance costs to compete in states with high average costs).
     States might also wish to further cut insurance costs for patients by passing legislation providing for their health departments and bureaus – and health insurance cooperatives within them – to evolve into worker-consumer wholesale purchasing cooperatives (providing for a closer and more direct negotiation on prices and other issues between health workers and patients). Organizing bulk purchasing can, should, and must be done in order to cut costs and to create economies of scale powerful enough to balance the power of sellers, but when the State is more trusted and empowered to do so than the people and their enterprises through the markets, the results tend to be the exact opposite of what was intended.
     In order to improve the delivery of health insurance to people who need it (whether they are citizens or not), I will urge states to allow people to purchase real health insurance in the open marketplace, including affordable basic catastrophic accident and illness policies, and change of health status insurance.
     I will additionally urge states to refrain from implementing single-payer systems. Although it is not the federal government's business to order states to enact this or that policy on health insurance (besides requiring them to allow trade and competition across state lines), the monopsony which government single-payer systems wield derives from a special privilege to monopolistically compete in purchasing. Such states' purchase mandates act as regulatory barriers to interstate insurance purchase and sales, thereby driving costs up. I will support the augmentation of antitrust laws in order to apply to single-payer systems requiring universal coverage.
     Single-payer is also undesirable because it would require public taxpayer funds to subsidize the insurance of each and every health customer, including individuals who want expensive, dangerous, and/or medically unnecessary procedures. This would undoubtedly create nothing but more protracted budget battles and ideological in-fighting.
     I do not support any level of government taking steps towards prohibiting purchase of health insurance by agencies other than governmental entities; non-governmental alternatives must always exist, and government must not show preferences for any alternative through differential taxation.
     The federal government can and should close a tax loophole, by ceasing to exempt employees from paying taxes on employer-provided health insurance. This special favor has created financial incentives for leaving people without health insurance once they lose their jobs and become unemployed, because it is a benefit for people who stay employed, and a way to encourage them to refrain from purchasing outside plans. Although the federal government should eventually stop taxing earnings altogether, for the time being it should tax all compensation equally.




For more entries on commerce, please visit:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...