Dept of Veterans Affairs PACKS HEAT ????

If Congress wants to create an agency to run the veterans' hospitals and other facilities needed and used by veterans, that's not a problem. Such operations _do_ need to be staffed and funded, and creating an agency to do that isn't unreasonable.

What's unreasonable is giving such administrative agencies the power to make laws. And that's what gets so many people angry. Agencies staffed by unelected career bureaucrats are given vague mandates like "clean up the environment" or "enforce gun laws"...and then left to make up whatever rules and regulations they like. Rules and regulations which have the force of law, despite never having been debated or voted on by any elected body, and which can (and often do) have bankrupting fines and/or PRISON TERMS attached to them.

THEN we discover that more and more of these "administrative" agencies are arming themselves. Why? Because they've become de facto mini-governments, making AND enforcing their own laws. So much for the separation of powers doctrine, and checks and balances.
 
No matter if it's a good idea, no matter if it's honorable, just, noble, and moral, no matter if "we owe them" - if it's not specifically authorized in the Constitution, the Congress can't do it.

But they still "do it." The "it" that they "do" is, of course, illegitimate.

The answer to all your questions about if not the feds, then who? The states. It's all within their power.

and creating an agency to do that isn't unreasonable.
Click to expand...

But there's no unless-it's-reasonable clause in Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution establishes a federal government of limited powers, very sharply defined. It doesn't say "yeah, all that stuff we just said, plus, if it's 'reasonable' you can do anything you want."

"We just want reasonable regulations." Where have we heard that before?
 
You're right. There is no constitutional basis for most of the agencies which exist. I assume you _will_ agree, however, that some agencies--those exercising powers delegated to the federal government--are legitimate, right?

I think that an argument _can_ be made for a Veterans Affairs agency on the basis of Congress' power to raise and fund an army. I think that providing medical care to veterans as a result of their military service is within their authority, since providing care for service-realted suffering or even just "retirement" benefits to older veterans is part of the compensation provided for their service. (Of course, there's no reason Congress couldn't just provide carloads of cash earmarked for veterans to existing hospitals, either. Then there would be no need for a VA agency.)
 
The States' power

Many things the Feds do could and should be done by the states. Especially, environmental stuff. Some things, however, require a national standard, such as air traffic control. As a pilot, I can tell you that if each state's landing lights were different, and if you had to switch air routes when you crossed state lines, it would be chaos. I'm not saying this requires such a bloated organization as the FAA. However, there are serious saftey needs here.

In our quest to ensure the Government stays in its place, we must not forget that the United States is still one nation. We adopted the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation for a reason.
 
Well you've hit on one possible alternative to the un-Constitutional DVA - that is paying regular hospitals for veteran care. The other is to make the DVA a completely military organization - that would be Constitutionally authorized, in my opinion.

Yes, if an agency is administering powers delegated in the Constitution, then it would be legitimate. Can you give some examples?

As to ATC: The states could still do this. They'd need to establish a uniform standard to be obeyed by all states, then enforce it. National standards can be established, without the help of the federal government.

Folks I'm not under the illusion that we can ever go back to the way it should be, that is a severely limited federal government. But one can still hope, yes?

Someone mentioned the federal DOT. The federal DOT is nothing more than a giant gun to the heads of the states to get them to do the bidding of the federal government.

FEDS: We want you to start collecting social security numbers from your driver's license applicants.

STATES: We don't want to do that.

FEDS: Ok, we'll just withhold your federal transportation funds until you comply

STATES: Well if you put it that way, I guess we don't have any choice. Here are the numbers.

The feds don't maintain interstate highways, it's the individual state departments of transportation that do that. The feds just provide some of the cash and the so-called standards for road building.
 
some agencies...

I'm sure the Constitution doesn't grant these specifically, but I think some agencies can, in theory, be applied under the context of providing for the general welfare and security. Then again, this is a congressional power, not an executive one. The CIA, for instance. I'm sure many people here are mistrustful of this black-ops organization, and that's understandable. But the fact remains, without them, the number of terrorist attacks in the United States would go through the roof and America would be at a serious intelligence disadvantage, hurting us in times of crisis and war. Also, although I am sure they've broken this rule, the CIA IS forbidden from operating within the US. The NSA, however, I'm sure we could live without.

NASA. The Constitution grants the gov't the power to provide for research and development of the useful arts and scientists. Space technology is very useful.

Many of these other agencies could probably be lumped under providing for general welfare, if they were controlled by the Congress instead of the presidency.
 
USP45usp,

I am referring to the Portland,OR VA hospital (next to OHSU) and the Vancouver,WA clinic. I take my Dad (WW2 vet) there often. I can't speak for other clinics.

A side note: Out of genuine concern for your rights, I recommend NEVER discussing any psychological issues with the VA. They will, as a Federal agency, file this information and use it against you in the future with regards to firearms ownership. Leftist members of Congress have already tried to implement this crap. Fortunately, they failed. They will try again.

I am eligible for VA benefits (Desert Storm era Marine), but would only use them as a last resort.
 
Ah yes, the good old "general welfare" clause.

If Article I, Section 8 really provides for unlimited federal power in the name of providing for the "general welfare", then why even specifically list other powers? As James Madison asked in Federalist No. 41,

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
Click to expand...

Madison was responding to anti-federalists, who objected to the general welfare clause on the basis that it would open the door to many abuses. (How right they were.)

A good analogy is the opposition to the Bill of Rights. Some said there was no need. Since the Constitution gives no authority to restrict any of the rights listed in the BOR (no where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to restrict the ownership of arms, for example) why even document that the rights exist and cannot be restricted? Surely that would be a redundancy.

Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 84 that the inclusion of the BOR would only serve to confuse; that it would give the impression that the federal government was authorized to do anything that wasn't specifically prohibited to it. It is, of course, generally known that the opposite is true: the federal government is prohibited from doing anything that isn't specifically authorized. At least I thought it was generally known.
 
Boy-I go away for a day and look what I miss.

In regards to the question of government money for private hospitals-the feds already run medicare and it's a mess. I used to work at a medical facility in their collections department and the worst problems we had getting claims paid was from the welfare rolls and from medicare. The red tape was amazing.

In regards to the DOT. Nevada decided to tell the feds to take a flying leap about some state issue so the feds stopped sending them money to maintain the Interstate Highways in Nevada. So the state let the Interstates crumble and built their own freeways right next to them (my aunt lived in Las Vegas) Besides which all that money the feds are using to threaten states into complying with regulations is OUR money anyway. The only way to downsize government is to stop pouring money into it's maw.

As far as the CIA-I don't disagree that we need some form of agency to look into terrorism and such. However, that is not the only agency currently working on that sort of thing. There are a number of federal alphabet agencies doing the same job. Why?

Not to mention the fact that a number of them shouldn't exist at all. The only way to fix this problem that I can see is to elect people to the state governments with the stones to put the federal governemtn beast back in it's cage. Build from the bottom up.
 
Dean--

I'd say that Section 8 authorizes the Congress to establish agencies to oversee "collecting taxes, duties, imposts and excises", to "coin Money, regulate the value thereof" and "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures", the Postal Service, the Patent Office and the Department of Defense, among others.

In theory, an agency to oversee the issuance and revocation of Letters of Marque and Reprisal would be valid, though the idea that our current government ever would is laughable.

Note, however, that _none_ of these justifies giving such agencies the power to make laws, or to arm LEOs of any kind.


Nightcrawler--

There are lots of examples of standards which have been implemented nationwide without any governmental prodding. In the 19th century, the _railroads_ got together and established standards for track widths, cargo coding and methods of paying for use of one another's tracks--so that they could all benefit by using one another's infrastructure to move passengers and cargo. Why? Self-interest.

The notion that standards are established only when government requires them flies in the face of the evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top