Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Arizona's Constitutional War Powers

Over at American Thinker. Funny that the US Government neglects the responsibilities explicitly stated in the Constitution (protecting states from invasion), and repeatedly overreaches into areas that are none of its business (health care).

Great article James!

9 comments:

  1. I disagree that health care is not in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, which spells out the powers of Congress, states:

    "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States..."

    So Congress has the Power to provide for the common defense and general welfare. What does welfare mean in this context? Probably not the way modern Americans use the word as a label or government assistance for the poor. Dictionary.com offers the following definition for "welfare":

    "1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society. "

    If "common defense" can include the defense of foreign countries like Japan and Israel and wars against countries and groups that don't threaten us like Iraq or the Taliban, then Congress can certainly provide for the general welfare by correcting inequities of the cost for health care.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congressman John Conyers says healthcare is in the "Good and Welfare Clause" and he should know as he is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I don't know why Dancar doesn't know this.

    Incidentally, Dancar's ever-hovering presence reminds me of the old zen question "If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around, does it make a sound?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe Dancar's ever-hovering presence is needed to make up for what most Tea Partiers seem to lack: the willingness or ability to step back from themselves and their stated positions and ask themselves a few questions, such as: Do I know for sure that this is true? Am I sure I understand what my opponents are saying? Are there aspects of this problem that I haven't considered? Do I need to know more?

    ReplyDelete
  4. And maybe his pay to troll the blog keeps him/her from filing a new unemployment claim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Re James Carender's article in American Thinker:
    He's really not making any constitutional arguments. He says (correctly) that "Without question, the debate, should Arizona have chosen this road not heretofore taken, would have centered on the meaning of the terms "invaded" and "imminent danger." Those are, in fact, arguable issues. " He mentions a couple of nonspecific anecdotes about armed sentries and "coyotes" and then states that the debate is closed. This is not a legal argument. He does not even attempt a legal definition of the terms.

    He does not give any current, real evidence of an undefined "invasion" to support his assertion that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi "are not fulfilling their constitutional duty to protect Arizona".

    Sorry, I don't agree with your opinion of his article. I think it's nothing more than his unsupported opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the last Anonymous knows where one can sign up to get paid for posting replies on blogs, or how to make a decent amount of money writing a blog without figuring out how to attract millions of hits, please let us all know. Maybe that can fix the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The "invasion" of Arizona is being undertaken by an unusual army, whose goal is not to overthrow the government, plunder natural resources, or annex territory, but to clean toilets, make beds, and mow lawns -- for the minimum wage in most cases. Certainly, the situation is a mess that requires attention. It is not the sort of thing envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, who never heard of Motel 6, Roto-Rooter, or Chem Lawn. And if there are criminals among the "invaders", we have a branch of government designed specifically to handle them. It's called law enforcement.








    r

    ReplyDelete
  8. Verdad! Illegals only want to come here to better their lives. There is no drug smuggling at all along the US-Mexican border, there are no kidnappings in Phoenix, there have been no ranchers killed nor their land despoiled by those crossing illegally. And those who wish to enforce America's laws are nothing but fascist pigs.

    Signed,

    -The American left

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear American Left, I am not denying that there is a problem -- I'm simply saying that the immigration problem is not the kind of "invasion" that the Constitution empowers individual states to repel until the federal government can respond with appropriate military force. There have been no documented beheadings in the desert, despite Gov. Brewer's claim. The illegal immigrants are not, primarily, "drug mules"; of the 170,000 immigrants arrested by the Tuscon sector drug patrol, only around 1,000 have been charged with drug offenses. The Arizona Republic reports that violence along the border has not been increasing. (And my brother in Phoenix says that life there is more or less normal.) To be sure, it's a bad situation, with both illegal immigrants and the people who hire them flouting the law. Not good at all. But it's not an "invasion" and there is no military solution.

    ReplyDelete

I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.