Since the passage of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the stimulus bills, and the recent health care bill, I have become increasingly concerned regarding the direction of our country.
There are currently multiple lawsuits concerning overreaching federal authority, and states are passing a spate of laws geared at stalling the expansion of or directly challenging existing federal authority.
After much research, I think I now have an idea what this health care bill is really about and the great significance of the direction we are heading. Medicare benefits could have been extended to low-income people with a 25-page bill. The bill that was passed is 2,500 pages, and it includes legislation regarding programs that have nothing to do with health care as well as a federal mandate for private citizens to do business with private companies, or be taxed (fined).
So here is my idea of what is going on:
The court challenge is the key to expanding federal authority based on the general welfare clause of the Constitution. The health care bill is simply the vehicle for entering a process where the judicial legislation is expected to occur.
Federalist-minded politicians used the commerce clause of the Constitution, and the later Interstate Commerce Act, to expand federal government authority, and they are now trying to do the same thing with the general welfare clause.
Historical statements by our founding fathers clearly show that the general welfare clause was simply the justification for the federal government to raise tax money for purposes of protecting “the general welfare of the ‘union’.”
They are trying to get a judicial ruling that it also includes the general welfare of individual citizens. And if they got that then the federal government could justify any laws as constitutional. It would be the end of state sovereignty and the beginning of a federal legislative despotism.
The key point here is that this can go to court, the bill, which is second in significance to the underlying issue, could be thrown out, and the judgment could still be written in a way that fundamentally changes the interpretation of the general welfare clause.
The whole thing serves to greatly expand the federal governments power, and further erode state sovereignty.
— James Murr, Scottsdale