Secessionist Governor Rick Perry Considering Nullifcation of Health Care Reform
Via Ben Armbruster, it seems that even thought Texas Governor Rick Perry seems to have backed off his earlier threats to secede from the union over the stimulus bill (indeed, he’s asking the federal government for loans now) he’s now decided to take another page out of the John C. Calhoun playbook and start talking about nullifcation of federal health care legislation:
Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be “disastrous” for Texas. [...]
“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”
I’m sure that some people out there really think that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are all unconstitutional. But even John Roberts isn’t nearly that crazy, so I don’t see Perry’s challenge going anywhere.
Of course the implications of this are rather different than the implications of secession. If Texas and other right-wing southern states were to secede, that would simply make it easier to pass beneficial legislation on health care and other topics. As I’ve noted previously, the decision of the South to react to Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 election drastically altered the balance of power in congress. The post-secession Republican majorities were able to not only take action against slavery, but also pass a Homestead Act, substantial expansion of federal support for higher education, initiate the construction of a trans-continental railroad, and institute a protective tariff. It’s not at all clear how much of that could have been achieved had the South’s leading politicians simply stayed in the Union and attempt to obstruct as much as possible (though to be clear at that time routine filibustering was considered out-of-bounds).
73 Responses to “Secessionist Governor Rick Perry Considering Nullifcation of Health Care Reform”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 24th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
This sounds like an idea that is both carefully considered and extremely Constitutional!
July 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I’m no lawyer (just graduated from law school this year), but I’m pretty sure that the text of the Tenth Amendment doesn’t mean what Rick Perry thinks it means.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
If Rick Perry and his followers don’t like our government, they are legally free to secede from the US whenever they want to. However, they can’t take Texas with them, it is Federal property. Good luck trying to find someone to take you in!
July 24th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Perry is just posturing. He’ll come crawling later, like he always does.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Just like Stalin’s abandonment of the Security Council made the UN intervention in Korea possible, if you want another example.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Only someone as deluded as Matt would point to the legislative victories of the Civil War era as a great thing, without also noting the death toll that went along with them – not to mention the banding together of Democrats north and south to end the nascent civil rights era of the post war era.
But hey, it was all great – there were legislative victories!
July 24th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
…to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be “disastrous” for Texas.
Right. Because it sure would suck if Texas had to give up its crown as the state with the highest percentage of people without health insurance.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
No. Look, we went over this in 1861.
Even in the most conservative states in the country, 1/3 of the electorate votes Democratic, and Democratic voters in those states tend to be the poorest and powerless.
You do not abandon those people to the tender mercies of Rick perry.
Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
My great great grandfather used to scare us with stories about the Land Grant college massacres.
(Psst! James, the South didn’t secede because of any legislation.)
July 24th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I always find it odd that Matthew somehow objects to Rick Perry talking about Texas seceding when Matthew himself was (unofficially) advocating seceding back in 2004.
Ah, hypocrisy…
July 24th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I wouldn’t mind if these shitbags seceded with some of the badlands, but they shouldn’t get the cities, because too many sane Texans live in them. Maybe some small corner of West Texas.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Good point Al. When Matt Says:
he is unofficially advocating for secession.
When I was a kid, I liked the Three Stooges. I guess I was advocating for poking people in the eyes.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
It appears this iteration of Al is unfamiliar with the rhetorical gesture involved in titling some outlandish suggestions “A Modest Proposal”.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
If Texas secedes, all the better for the rest of us. The loss of that many Republican voters will be the death blow to the Republicans in the USA!
July 24th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Good point Al.
Thanks!
Since here in this very post Matthew calls Perry (who also never said he advocates secession, he just mentioned that it is possible) a secessionist, Matthew ought to be held to the same standard, donthca think? Bringing up the idea of secession = being a secessionist.
I knew you’d understand, Njorl.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Only from a shrill bed-wetting fear mongering republican do you get “force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.” when the reality is more like: enact legislation based on issues that were debated during the election campaign where THERE WAS A CLEAR WINNER resulting in a mandate for change.
I don’t think Rick Perry believes in democracy.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Not only was filibustering out of bounds but in fact it was and is unsustainable if the side being filibustered against is determined enough. If the South had filibustered the north could have simply abolished the practice. And if Democrats really don’t like being filibustered they could abolish it as well. What is stopping them is a sense that the filibuster allows them to evade political responsibility for stuff.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I also think that it should be noted that despite all the good things we did with the strong Republican majorities the Civil war was still on balance very costly and we would all be better off if the confederacy had either never been started or be put down early by President Buchanan.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Now would be a great time to add a provision to the bill that ties the new health care system to medicare/medicaid. Refuse one part-you refuse them all. That will go over well.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
i live in texas, land of gov. goodhair. i even went to Texas A&M. but i must say, rick perry is full of c**p.
here is a personal reason i want single payer healthcare:
the company that my husband works for lost the contract to provide prison-based drug treatment. a new company takes over sept 1. we found out wednesday that he (and his co-workers) will go to work for the new company then; however, they have a 90 day probationary period, where the new company doesnt pay health insurance for their new employees, of which my husband will be one (even tho he has worked at the facility for almost 2 yrs). so, he can do cobra thru his old company for $600 per month, OR pay the full cost of the health ins. thru the new company (which we dont know) or get on my insurance for 330/mth plus the $80/mth it will cost me this year. so it will be somewhere between 1000 and 2000 in unanticipated costs over 3 months. thats between 2 and 4 times what the surtax on high-income people will be, as far as a percentage of our income.
so i am voting for single payer, and then we wont have to go thru thinking about what is easiest on our budget, which as always is paycheck to paycheck. We have no savings after putting 2 1/2 kids thru college (GI bill paid for youngest’s last 2 years) and making a very small down payment on our house. it is hard to believe we are in the 4th quintile (the lower end) in household income. i cant imagine what really poor folks are up against.
so rick perry, if you dont like it, move somewhere else, or make it where the new company your state govt contracts with has to pay for my husband’s insurance.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Yeaaahhh baby! Let’s go with states’ rights and, hell yeah, secession. I’m in NYC and nothing would make me happier than to be disconnected from all those socialist red states that are sucking up my tax dollars and dragging down the intelligent, reasonable, and hardworking parts of the country in so, so many ways.
ps: Rick Perry’s looking like such a sloganeering Texan halfwit that he might just be President one day.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Right. Go Texas Go!
Leave us our tax dollars–we need them here in CA.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Time to park a couple of carriers off the Texas coast and start running Federal gunboats up the Rio Grande.
That’s a page from the Andy Jackson playbook. Now just keep the whimpy-ass Compromiser Clay-types out of the picture and Texas will be ours!
July 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
W did us one small favor: I think it will be a generation until another Republican dimwit from my state has a prayer of winning the presidency.
But we really need the “heavy hand” of the feds down here to keep the crazies in check. Our legislature is systematically starving public education. Perry wants to sell off vast swaths of the state to private profiteers, not just to build toll roads but to “develop” a half-mile-wide corridor on either side of a highway running from Mexico to Oklahoma.
And 7 out of 15 members of the state board of education think that Lincoln, MLK, and Cesar Chavez should be dropped from the curriculum. Plus they’re convinced that the earth is no more than 6000 years old, and that Adam and Eve had to contend with dinosaurs.
Help!
July 24th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Perry is getting primaried by a less-crazy Republican, so riling up the yahoos is absolutely essential if he wants to win.
His odds are long; though recent polling shows him to have pulled even with Hutchison among Republicans, a lot of indies and Dems are sure to vote in the primary.
Worse yet for Perry, the front-running Dem is Tom Schieffer, a family friend of George W. Bush, co-owner of the Texas Rangers, and brother of Bob Schieffer the CBS anchor. Progressives really don’t have a dog in this race (Schieffer’s strongest-polling opponent is former indie candidate Kinky Friedman), but if Hutchison somehow fails to knock off Perry, conservative independents and less-crazy Republicans won’t be afraid to vote for Schieffer.
It almost looks like a fairly well-coordinated strategy with the express object of knocking off Perry. Schieffer serves mainly as a backstop to Hutchison, who, if she gets past Perry, is sure to win the general by a large margin.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
” force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats”
rick perry, collectivist!
doesn’t he know, there are no collective throats, only rugged individual throats?
maybe he’s just deep in the throat of texas.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
After trying to assist my girlfriend in navigating the Texas Medicaid system, I can safely say that Governor Haircut and his Republican buddies have done enough damage already, thankyouverymuch.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I understand that my family are looking to leave Texas at the first available moment.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Texas where 1 of every 4 citizens does not have health insurance.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Calling something “a modest proposal” is a reference to a famous spoof essay about eating babies, and is used to indicate that you are NOT proposing it.
If you weren’t illiterate, you’d know that.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Texas where 1 of every 4 citizens does not have health insurance.
And Rick Perry couldn’t care less.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Well, let it be noted that the Social Security Act is constitutional in the same sense it was constitutional for FDR to have a U.S. citizen tried by a military tribunal which only required a 2/3 vote for conviction and sentencing, and then have the convicted citizen electrocuted within a week of conviction. That is, FDR had a habit of placing the proverbial horse’s head in the beds of Supreme Court justices, thus magically making things constitutional. Hell, if he had made it until 1948, maybe the entire notion of a President or a Congress doing something unconstitutional would be completely anachoristic. That sure would have changed the political rhetoric between 2001 and 2009.
There’s a monument on The Mall for FDR, of course.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Because I don’t think anyone wants to live in a world where Texas can’t pull poor black children off of life support.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Comments like that will result in a lot of people (including me) crossing over and voting for Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Republican primary. She’s pretty bad, but Perry is outright scary.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
If Perry wants to take his ball and go home, let him try.
Texans: Just how popular is this clown among the voters of your state? What are his chances of reelection? People who are not John Birchers can’t take this stuff seriously.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Will Allen, I heartily encourage Republicans to run on a platform that Social Security is unconstitutional.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
And then the Four Horsemen went to the glue factory.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Oh Al. You’re so cute when you’re so disingenuous.
Perry saying that Texas has the right to secede (they don’t) is equivalent to Matt making a joke. You’re trying to say that you believe that.
Really.
You’re not even trying anymore Al.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
For those who don’t recall, “Craig” is referring to the case of Sun Hudson in 2005, an infant born with a uniformly-fatal fibroblast growth faction disorder. The hospital’s ethics board, acting under a 1999 Texas indemnification law enacted by George W. Bush (with Perry as Lt. Gov), voted to remove ventilator support from Sun over his mother’s wishes. (His mother was arguably mentally incapacitated; for example, she insisted that her child’s father was the sun.)
The key issue here is not, I think, that the law is bad, or that the hospital acted unethically, but that Texas’ government is *already* interfering with citizens’ health care choices, and for specifically-pecuniary motives: the expense of providing “futile care” for patients facing statistically-certain mortality.
Once the government weighs in on the decision to remove life-sustaining treatment, it’s more than a bit hypocritical to complain about improving insurance coverage. But that’s Perry for you.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
His mother was arguably mentally incapacitated; for example, she insisted that her child’s father was the sun.
I don’t really think “arguably” is the word I’d use there.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
One of the interesting questions about Civil War history was why the North did not just simply wish the South well on its new venture and send them packing.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Off topic, but did anyone else notice the 11/3/2004 post just after the one Al linked to?
“I liked Barak’s convention speech as much as the next guy, but I must say that I’m a bit taken aback but some of the Obama ‘08! excitement I’m hearing from otherwise sober-minded folks.”
July 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Re: Perry’s reelection chances. I’m not plugged in to GOP Texas politics as such but Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson will run against Perry in 2010. While I don’t like Hutchinson, she’s a moderate next to Perry. Both are very popular but I think a few of the big hitters (read: $$$) will lineup behind Hutchinson, if they haven’t already. That leaves Perry with the wingnuts and even in Texas that won’t probably won’t be enough to beat out the Texas GOP establishment.
These points may have already been made but I think this is worth linking to… http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/07/13/daily5.html
-About 20 percent of people in Texas report not visiting a doctor due to high costs.
-Texas businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $1,800 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.
-25 percent of people in Texas are uninsured and 75 percent of them are in families with at least one full-time worker.
-The percent of Texans with employer coverage is declining: from 57 to 50 percent between 2000 and 2007.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Let’s hope Perry doesn’t remember a tool – not secession – that Texas DOES arguably have to screw up the country. When Texas was admitted as a state in 1845, it was given the right to at any time divide into as many as five states. No need to do it based on population, either, so the state could be gerrymandered to guarantee an 8-2 or even 10-0 balance of Republican senators. Scary indeed.
Ironically, when Texas actually DID secede (1861), that may have nullified the 5-state provision.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Re: The post-secession Republican majorities were able to not only take action against slavery, but also pass a Homestead Act, substantial expansion of federal support for higher education, initiate the construction of a trans-continental railroad, and institute a protective tariff.
would the Homestead Act have been unpopular in the South? It gave away free land and I can that being quite popular un the agricultural South. Also, I beleive that the South was in biard for the transcontinental railway. One suggested route was to send it from Charleston west to El paso then on to southern California, which is the reason for the Gadsden purchase (Gadsden himself was from South Carolina).
Re: tool – not secession – that Texas DOES arguably have to screw up the country. When Texas was admitted as a state in 1845, it was given the right to at any time divide into as many as five states.
Any state can divide into multiple states. However Congress must vote to allow those states in the Union. That’s constitutional law and any backroom deal made with Sam Houston back in 1845 cannot trump the US Constitution.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Let them secede but require that they take Mississippi with them !
July 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I’m sure that some people out there really think that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are all unconstitutional. But even John Roberts isn’t nearly that crazy, so I don’t see Perry’s challenge going anywhere.
It’s not crazy to say that Social Security is unconstitutional. It is, and anyone who is honest with themselves knows it is (as is Medicare). However, one can argue that it is crazy for anyone with a desire to get ahead politically to say so, just as it might be crazy to point out that the emperor is, in fact, naked.
I think that Will Allen (#32), has it correct.
Hell, if he had made it until 1948, maybe the entire notion of a President or a Congress doing something unconstitutional would be completely anachoristic. That sure would have changed the political rhetoric between 2001 and 2009.
Absolutely.
#36:
Will Allen, I heartily encourage Republicans to run on a platform that Social Security is unconstitutional.
That, of course, might not be wise, not because it is a crazy position, but because it is politically suicidal NOT TO LIE about the constitutionality of Medicare and Social Security (to admit the truth, you would either have to amend the constitution, admit that you are ignoring the constitution, or end the programs).
July 24th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
The whole five-state doohickey (a technical term) is a fascinating topic for late-night bull sessions. The language is maddeningly vague: “New states…may, hereafter by the consent of [Texas], be formed out of the territory thereof.” It’s not at all clear to me from those words that Texas has the unilateral authority to subdivide itself–they would just have to “consent” to new states “being formed” by the awesome and subtle power of a verb in the passive voice. You can easily argue that Congress should have a say in that “formation,” as the language of the Joint Resolution is unclear, and Congress has always had a say in admitting new states in the past.
In fact, it’s not entirely clear to me how this is any different from any other state in the Union: if the United States as a whole really thought that there should be a state of South California and another state of North California, and California agreed…well, what’s to stop it? That sort of thing has more or less happened in the past, albeit with much post-facto arm twisting.
It would be lotsa fun for the Supreme Court to untangle some day, especially with the whole Civil War and Reconstruction/Readmission angle. But, practically, I think it’s pretty remote.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
tomemos, I was merely factually commenting on how Social Security became “constitutional”, not giving electoral strategy.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
[...] up by progressive blogger Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress. Here is what he had to say about the constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I’m sure that some people out there really think that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security [...]
July 24th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
No Will “I support mass murder to ensure my continued use of oil” Allen, but you have often told us how important it is to forgive the General Fund’s debt to Social Security (that that would be a windfall for high earners is surely a mere coincidence) and turn Social Security into a welfare program. So it’s not like you just bring it up to be educational; you bring it up to disparage. Only a total fucking moron wouldn’t notice. And, other than you, there aren’t many total fucking morons here.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Headline reads:
Please show me the quote by Gov. Perry that even suggests he has ever advocated for Texas’ secession fromthe Union.
Thanks
July 24th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
From, of all places, Fox News to you Scott:
July 24th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
That is the definition of Secessionist? Wow.
July 24th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Why are you making fun of secession? In the case of Texas, it is no joke, it is a state right. Are you aware that Texas negotiated a formal (and unique) right to secede from the United States at the time it joined the Union? Read your history.
July 24th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
apetra, not sure who you are addressing. But the author of this story and many other lefty..oops, “progressive” blogs refer to Perry as a secessionist based on the above comments.
It would be like Gov. Perry saying “There’s absolutely no reason to pass universal heath care.” “Progressive” bloggers write in headlines: ‘Texas Governor Rick Perry supports Universal Heath Care.’
Same thing.
July 24th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
There are many forms and degrees of Narcisissm in politicians (and others) but very few reach the extremes of fools like Govs. Perry, Sanford, and Palin.
July 25th, 2009 at 12:24 am
You are wrong. I suggest you read the resolution annexing Texas into the union and the resolution of the Texas assembly to enter the union. There is no mention of a right to leave the union. It is a myth.
From Texas v White, supreme court majority opinion written by Chief Justice Chase(via Wikipedia):
July 25th, 2009 at 12:36 am
gurgle.
HEY WHERE ARE MY MEDS!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 25th, 2009 at 12:54 am
I’d love to see Texas secede. I think the US would be better off without Texas and a few other southern states.
July 25th, 2009 at 1:31 am
…he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be “disastrous” for Texas.
Rick Perry is exactly right. Invoking the 10th Amendment would indeed be disastrous for Texas.
July 25th, 2009 at 1:45 am
Will Allen:
Ok, I’m sorry, but how does attempting to pass perfectly constitutional legislation expanding the size of the Supreme Court, losing the vote, and accepting this fact, constitute a mafia-like attempt to overthrow the rule of law? If anything, the Supreme Court, by attempting to “make law” from the bench establishing their personal views on property rights, laissez faire, and federalism in direct opposition to repeated massive popular mandates in 1932, 1934, and 1936, were acting undemocratically.
Reagrding the constitutionality of Social Security: Social Security was practically written by the Supreme Court – former aides and students drafted the law, Brandeis and other Justices advised the members of the CES on how to draft the law to pass review on federalism. So explain to me why Social Security is unconstitutional?
July 25th, 2009 at 2:53 am
Look out, Steven: you may be forced to bring up briefs written by Social Security’s supporters, which stated explicitly, in contrast to what they said when the matter was taken up by Congress, that Social Security was NOT an insurance program, that the payroll taxes “are not earmarked for any special purpose.” If you do, there’s a mentally ill person in this forum who might double his activity, and his ravings are pathetic already. Exercise caution!
Of course, the 180 degree pivot was necessary, in order to argue that the act sqaured with the general taxing and expenditure power for purposes of the general welfare. Pure sophistry, of course, but them’s politics. Yes, FDR’s court packing scheme was legal, and a wholly unprecedented effort to intimidate the Court. It worked. Later, FDR wouldn’t even be bothered to go to this effort; he quietly told the court that he was going to execute some spies, including a U.S. citizen, no matter how they ruled on the appeal, so they should factor the future viability of the court when considering the case. That fella was one determined omelette-maker.
Look, you appear to be possessed of the view that the Constitution is a document which advocates pure majoritarian rule, given you seem to think it notable that the Supreme Court would act undemocratically. I’ll have to differ with you about that, and simply note that if FDR’s mandates were so large, then he should have availed himself of the amendment process more frequently, if he wanted to respect the law. Getting a large supermajority to agree that Beer is Good, however, is a bit more simple.
Finally, let me note that I am not a FDR hater, at least not any more than other Presidents. To be a President is to be a liar and a crook, and that is about the best that can be done in this Vale of Tears. In that club, the good done by FDR outweighed the bad by a large margin, and that is about as good as it gets. That doesn’t mean, however, that we are required to adopt the cartoonish views espoused when knockin’ heads and twistin’ arms were the orders of the day.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Re: It’s not crazy to say that Social Security is unconstitutional.
It is crazy, because the program is not unconstitional (Hint: If it were, some court would struck the program down on those grounds). No, you are welcome to wish that it had been found unconstititional, but since it has not been it’s as nuts to say that it is as it would be to say “Obama is not the president”.
Re: Why are you making fun of secession? In the case of Texas, it is no joke, it is a state right. Are you aware that Texas negotiated a formal (and unique) right to secede from the United States at the time it joined the Union?
How did that work out for Texas back in 1861-65? And any treaty between the Republic of Texas and the United States is null and void due to the fact that there is no Republic of Texas and hasn’t been for a rather long time. (Treaties with defunct nations are defunct themselves).
July 25th, 2009 at 8:14 am
It is crazy, because the program is not unconstitional (Hint: If it were, some court would struck the program down on those grounds).
You’re an idiot. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing social welfare programs. The fact that no court has found it unconstitutional is simply because of the fact that it has become popular enough so that no one wants to touch it.
No, you are welcome to wish that it had been found unconstititional,
I never said that it had been found unconstitutional. I said that it was unconstitutional. The fact that no court has found in unconstitutional does not make it constitutional anymore than the fact that no one wanted to tell the Emperor that he was naked means that he was clothed. The courts did not write the consitution, liberal orthodoxy notwithstanding.
If anything, the Supreme Court, by attempting to “make law” from the bench establishing their personal views on property rights, laissez faire, and federalism in direct opposition to repeated massive popular mandates in 1932, 1934, and 1936, were acting undemocratically.
Undemocratically =/= unconstitutional.
Social Security is not constitutional because nowhere in he Constitution are wealth transfer or social welfare programs authorized.
Of course, the 180 degree pivot was necessary, in order to argue that the act sqaured with the general taxing and expenditure power for purposes of the general welfare.
Actually the government only has the power to tax for the general welfare, nowhere is it given the power to spend for the general welfare, which implies that the “general welfare” clause only pertains to raising the money to spend on specifically authorized programs delineated in other sections of the Constitution (i.e. the pwoer is to raise taxes in order to promote the general welfare by funding the other functions of government). Madison himself suggested that the “general welfare clause” was limited by what was authorized elsewhere in the Constitution.
July 25th, 2009 at 8:20 am
No, you are welcome to wish that it had been found unconstititional, but since it has not been it’s as nuts to say that it is as it would be to say “Obama is not the president”.
No, it’s more like saying that Bush “was not legitimately elected.” A hell of a lot of people believe that Bush stole the 2000 election, and the fact that the Supreme Court ruled such that the recounts stopped and he was declared the winner is unlikely to legitimize his victory in their eyes. The Supreme Court’s decisions, in a lot of people’s eyes, didn’t legitimize his victory, it just showed the Court to be corrupt.
(There is, of course, a parallel controversy over whether or not Obama is legitimately eligible to be president, but I have not followed the controversy enough to say much about it).
July 25th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Glaivester, I of course am in general agreement with you, but to be generous to the opposing view, when the text reads….
“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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”
….the thinking goes that providing for the general welfare is synonomous with spending. Of course, one can concede this point, and it still remains the fact that as a matter of reason, as opposed to an exercise of raw political power, that Social Security was unconstitutional the day it was enacted.
What I find mildly amusing about these debates is that those who most vehemently defend the constitutionality of Social Security, or more ridiculously, the broadest possible reading of the Commerce Clause, are also those who will dednounce their mirror image, the jurisprudence of Robert Bork. Just as Bork calls the Ninth Amendment an “ink blot” when he can’t reconcile it’s language with his flawed interpretation of the rest of the document, these folks have to lose their sensory ability when they get to the 10th Amendment, and then are reduced to appeals to Cardozo’s and some clerks’ authority.
To adopt this manner of thinking, one has to suppose that the fellas who wrote the document, once they started crafting the amendments, were just killin’ time in the taverns, and decided to write a bunch of stuff which was to be ignored, because somebody else was using the billiards table. This is the sort of reasoning which gains tenure in Ivy League L-schools.
July 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Re: You’re an idiot.
As usual, when certain characters can’t devise an intelligent reply they resort to juvenile insult.
Once again, you are welcome to opine that you think the law should be unconstitutional– but the fact is it has not been found to be so. Therefore it remains constitiutional. This is the same as saying “I think X should be against the law”. But until such time as a body with authority to make law or pronounce constitutionality does as you wish, you are not, yourself, the proper authority to make these declarations. This is a republic, but Glaivster’s autocracy.
Re: Social Security is not constitutional because nowhere in he Constitution are wealth transfer or social welfare programs authorized.
They are not forbidden either. The Constitution establishes how the US government will be setup and run. It does not spell out in any specific detail what that government is to do. It leaves Congress to make the laws. Here’s an example I don’t know what your opinion on abortion is, but would you say that abortion must remain legal because no where in the Constitution is any govermmental body, whether state or federal, given specific license permit to deal with abortion?
Re: No, it’s more like saying that Bush “was not legitimately elected.”
George W Bush was the legitimately elected president of the USA. There, are you happy?
Re: There is, of course, a parallel controversy over whether or not Obama is legitimately eligible to be president
Per the Constitution, and by quite specific words in it, and per the available evidence, he most certainly is. The so-called controversy is as looney-tunes as the whole 9-11 truther nonsense.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Social Security is not constitutional because nowhere in he Constitution are wealth transfer or social welfare programs authorized…
What an absurd thing to say. The power to tax (Article I) by definition means the power to take somebody’s wealth (money) and transfer for it for purposes of furthering the country’s “general welfare.”
Do us all a favor an go Gault.
July 25th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Will, Glaivester,
The three branches of the government, state governments, and the people have been operating under the assumption that the 10th Amendment does not work the way you believe it to. If the Supreme Court were to change its mind, and strike down thousands of laws, the question would be, can congress and the state legislatures repeal the 10th amendment before the people kill off the entirety of the Supreme court, the congress, and the state legislatures.
You can’t change the foundation upon which government has been built, and expect it to have legitimacy. That foundation does not include your interpretation of the tenth amendment. Your interpretation of the 10th amendment dissolves the compact between our government and people.
July 25th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Kind of incredible that Southern Senators are routinely embracing a tactic that people who seceded from the union and declared war on the United States considered beyond the pale.
July 26th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Yes, Njorl the 10th Amendment doesn’t exist. Aliens inserted it while no one was watching.
Here’s a clue regarding intellectually honest legal reasoning. When you think not a single decision would change whether a certain amendment existed or not, it’s safe to say that a good faith effort has not been made to understand the original document. Another one might be that when a President undertakes an unprecedented effor to intimidate the Supreme Court, the President’s legal arguments are not being made in good faith.
July 27th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
[...] Secessionist Governor Rick Perry considering nullification of health care reform (Yglesias). [...]