From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:51:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

As requested by e-mail, follow-ups are idrected away from or.politics and 
ne.politics

In article <BxsD35.551@slipknot.rain.com> robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed) writes:
>The more interesting question to me is this: in this day of deregulation, who
>should properly pay the premiums on that insurance?

I think the individual banks always have, and I see no reason to change 
that. Under government insurance, however, I believe the rates are fixed
(e.g. high-risk banks don't pay a higher rate) nor does the rate really
reflect the expected payment of claims.

>|Most unions were formed _despite_ scabs (and, in fact, also despite hostility
>|from the government.) Forming unions isn't _easy_, but it is possible and
>|effective.

>It's true that most of our major unions were formed despite union busters and
>scabs, but the recent history of the major unions is quite a contrast to that
>during their formation...
>...In fact, I can't think of a new major union organized in
>the last twenty years.  I'd hardly call that effective.

I think that is, in part, due to government intervention: Scabs and union
braking depend on finding non-union workers willing to work for less than
union members (and/or willing to work under conditions that union workers
would strike over.) Fifty or a hundred years ago, unions were trying
to assure matters of survival: The bare minimum of safety standards and
enough pay to life on. It was moderately difficult to find scabs willing
to work of less than that. Today, the government assures these things by 
regulation, and unions are often striking over job security, additional
benefits or comfortable (as opposed to survival) wages. It's much easier
to find a scab willing to work without job security, than one willing to
work for sub-starvation wages.

>|>Better look again, specifically at the first and last paragraphs of Article 1,
>|>Section 8:
>|>  The Congress shall have power
>|>    To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts
>|>  and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United
>|>  States;...
>|>  ...
>|>    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>|>  execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
>|>  constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department
>|>  or officer thereof.

>|>That is, Congress has the power to make laws which provide for the general
>|>welfare of the United States.

>|Look again: That clause begins, "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts
>|and excises..." to accomplish a number of very broad goals.  This does _not_
>|grant general lawmaking authority in these areas...

>All right, I'll grant you that.  Having looked at the section again, I do see
>your position as one plausible interpretation, though I am not convinced it is
>the only interpretation.  The Constitution was written in general terms for a
>number of reasons, among which: 1) to ensure its ratification in 13 disparate
>colonies, 2) to be a lasting document, whose vagaries could be interpreted in
>the future to handle unforseen contingencies.

Actually, there isn't any evidence for the later reason: The vagaries of the
document have that effect, but it wasn't intended. The various debates and
writings suggest the framers wanted the amendment provisions (Article Five) 
to be the means by which the Constitution was adapted to changing times.
You also leave out a more cynical reason: Hamilton's political planning.
It was fairly clear at the time that George Washington would be the
first President, and would appoint many of his friends (mostly Federalists)
to government office. Hamilton realized that vague passages in the 
Constitution would be defined by precedent, and those precedents would
be set largely by Federalists in the new government. Therefore, being
vague in the Constitution helped them incorporate their opinions into
the structure of the new government.

However, as far as the taxing clause we are discusing, I think your 
interpertation has a fatal flaw: Everyone involved in the framing of
the document agreed that Article One, Section Eight was intended limit
the federal government to certain, specific functions; the states were
to have authority in other aresa. This was further confirmed by the
Tenth Amendment. Therefore, I don't think any clause in Article One,
Section Eight, can honestly be interperted as a general grant of
sweeping powers. Further, if the passage means what you suggest, 
why are there so many redundant grants of power in the following 
clauses: "To regulate Commerce...", "To establish an uniform Rule
of Naturalization...", "To coin money...", "To establish Post Offices and
post Roads.", etc...? By your interpertation, these powers are already
granted by the "...to provide for... the general Welfare..." in the first
clause. It is a well established principle in constitutional law, that
"no part of the Constitution shall be taken to be without effect" (paraphrase
from Marbury v. Madison) and any interpertation that implies useless or
redundant clauses is probably a bad interpertation.

>|One of the basic assumptions of our government is that everyone agrees
>|to go along with the will of the majority as expressed by elections and
>|the political process _providing_ the majority stays within the bounds
>|of the Constitution.  If Clinton were to exceed these bounds, Bush's 
>|supporters would have every right to feel imposed on. In my opinion, 
>|many of Clinton's proposals are of doubtfull [sic] constitutionality.
>|(But then, I think a great deal of our current federal government is also
>|of questionable constitutionality.)

>I don't think that most of Bush's supporters need Clinton to do anything for
>them to feel imposed upon.  Their concern that he comes from the Johnson tax
>and spend "Great Society" mold is sufficient to fuel their feeling.

Note, please, my final sentence.

>|>That clearly does NOT jibe with the historical record.  Behavior of the Klu
>|>Klux Klan and other hate groups have been suppressed by the will of the
>|>majority.

>|Where they are suppressed _by_law_ (as opposed to overwelming [sic]
>|opposition by private citizens), this is a violation of the Fourteenth
>|Amendment and/or First Amendment (depending on whether it's a state or a
>|federal law.) 

(I was assuming that "the behavior of the Klu Klux Klan" refered to "hate
speach" and other efforts to limit freedom of speach, press and
assembly by racits organizations.)

>You're splitting hairs.  An overwhelming majority generally favor laws which
>protect citizens from the abuses perpetrated by the aforementioned hate
>groups.

Legally, there is an enormous difference between pressure from private
citizens and laws. The Constitution limits what governments can do, but
not what private citizens can.

>And it is the very 14th amendment you cite which provides for this.  Due
>process directs the states to provide equal protection under the law and not
>to impinge upon the "priviledges or immunities" of its citizenry.  Surely you
>don't think that lynching, or harrassing people to scare them away from
>polling places are rights protected by the Constitution?  Or that burning a
>cross in someone's yard does not deprive them of life, liberty or property?

These things are crimes no matter who does them: The majority isn't 
enforcing its opinion of the KKK. It would be equally illegal for the
NAACP to lynch racists, or harass suspected racists to scare _them_
away from the polls. In fact, these things are illegal without the
Fourteenth Amendment: It only assures that no exceptions may be made
by local governments. That is, the government may not enforce it's
moral views about certain groups by preferentially enforcing the law.

>|Perhaps I should have said, "The majority can't legally set..." Also,
>|note that I said the majority couldn't set _any_ standards (E.g. their
>|power to enact laws against things they don't approve of is limitied [sic].)
>|I didn't say the majority can enact _no_ standards and have _no_
>|power to legislate based on their opinions. You are citing examples
>|which are within these limits:

>No, I just get upset when I see people express things in terms of absolutes.
>"Any" is the correct word, because ANY standard that the majority see fit to
>endorse can be codified into our legal system.

I find in the Constitution the following passage: "In all criminal prosecutions
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury..." The majority can not legally deny, say, drug dealers
a trail by jury. Our governemnt is structured to limit the things
which the majority can impose through laws.

>The Constitution does give an
>extraordinary benefit to the minority view (which I highly favor), and which
>can, at least temporarily, give priority to minority positions.  For example,
>we've had twelve years of administrations that have blocked abortion rights
>any way they could, despite the fact that the majority favors some form of
>pro-choice position (as has been demonstrated by numerous surveys).

The administration hasn't blocked abortion rights in any general sense: They
have restristed it's discussion at federally funded clinics. (By the
way, given a "comprehensive national health care system" _everyone_ in
the medical industry will be federally funded and subject to exactly
this sort of restriction. Federal programs and money come with strings
attached, which should be remembered before creating new, sweeping federal
programs...)

>|>|It seems that the idea of limited government, confined to a few narrow
>|>|areas of legislation, is a good one: Only in a few cases do [sic] the
>|>|government do more good than harm, and it should be strictly limited to
>|>|these areas.

>|I think we agree, for example, in the area of religion, governments have
>|done more harm than the alternative. (Is a lack of regulation on one
>|topic, religion, "partial anarchy"?)

>We agree here, essentially, but again, my objection was to such absolute
>statements as "all government is bad" or "governments can never do things as
>well as private enterprise."

I made no such sweeping statement: I said (as I recall) "...in most 
(many?) cases..."

>...I'm willing to recognize the value of good government,
>and it appears that despite previous statements, so are you.

I'm willing to accept it as a necessary evil (since "good government"
doesn't really exist, I'm talking about "government.") _provided_
that it is strictly limited to those areas in which it really is
necessary (as opposed to helpful or convenient.)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc