Thursday, May 10, 2012

Debate on the Consitutionality of Obamacare.

See first this quest column from the Alpine Avalanche.  Then, see my response.


  1. Great response that highlighted well the ideological rant of a well meaning, but poorly informed commentator. After my having read the origins of the necessary and proper clause by G. Lawson, et al., The commentator's childish belief that the necessary and proper clause gives the federal government unlimited powers fails to understand and/or respect what our founding generation struggled to secure. According to Lawson and Seidman, "The implementational executive and judicial powers of the president and federal courts are implicitly constrained by the principle of reasonableness.". This standard goes straight to the heart of concerned patriots like the anti-federalist writer "Brutus" wherein he wrote " ... it is requisite, that we fully investigate the nature, and extent of the powers intended to be granted by this constitution to the rulers." Brutus goes on to warn about a limitless misuse and abuse of constitutional grants. And how such " ... would totally destroy all the power of the state governments.". This overreach into states' affairs got a foot hold during the turn of the last century. Our country's structural paradigm of federalism has ever-since been insidiously undermined and weakened. We'll have to wait and see if "Obamacare" ultimately topples America fully into the proven ugly abyss of socialism.

  2. The "commentator" refers to MBL's submission to the Avalanche.

    Also, the U.S. Constitution's tenth amendment was included to reinforce said reasonable constraint on federal powers. Absent the Bill of Rights, our country and its constitution are doomed to failure.

  3. 44: Thanks. It looked to me like the original guest columnist just copied something in favor of Obamacare.