NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/or/politics/635

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 10.6 KB

Xref: sparky or.politics:635 alt.politics.clinton:17186 alt.politics.democrats.d:560 alt.politics.elections:23846 ba.politics:7136 co.politics:2032 ne.politics:2987 nj.politics:725 ny.politics:246 talk.politics.misc:60240
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!fcrary
From: [e-mail] (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:51:08 GMT
Lines: 195

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Reed) writes:
>|>You may think it was stupid, but it was viewed at the time as a necessary
>|>measure (along with bank regulation) to raise people's trust of the banking
>|>system following the great depression.

>|In which case, it is an obsulete [sic] institution which should be eliminated.

>I don't believe deposit insurance is obsolete, though in light of bank
>deregulation, perhaps its funding should be reexamined.  That was my point to
>begin with.

If the real reason for deposit insurance is the one given (to restore
confidince in banks, after the Depression), then it is obsolete: It has
long ago accomplished this objective.

>|>That assumes that there are competitive businesses within a particular job
>|>market that would choose to differentiate themselves to draw a work force
>|>from the local job pool.

>|Or that the employees can form unions. They are quite capable of this.

>That assumes that there is enough shortage of labor to allow organizing to be
>effective.  Scabbing will kill a union quicker than anything, so unions are no
>guarantee of worker power.

Most unions were formed _despite_ scabs (and, in fact, also despite hostility
from the government.) Forming unions isn't _easy_, but it is possible and
effective.

>|If you look, you will see that social programs do not, honestly, fall into
>|any of the government's legidimate [sic] powers (they are currently justified
>|as "necessary and proper" to regulate interstate commerce. The kindest thing
>|you can call that is intelectual [sic] dishonesty.) So only in certain limited
>|cases are we a single nation ruled by the will of the majority.

>Better look again, specifically at the first and last paragraphs of Article 1,
>Section 8:
>  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;...
>  ...
>    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>  execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
>  constitution in the government of hte United States, or in any department or
>  officer thereof.

>That is, Congress has the power to make laws which provide for the general
>welfare of the United States.

Look again: That clause begins, "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts
and excises..." to accomplish a number of very broad goals. This does
_not_ grant general lawmaking authority in these areas (if that were the case,
the rest of Article One, Section Eight would be irrelevant: It grants
additional powers all of which fall under the lable of "provid[ing] for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...") Further,
the debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and at the state
ratification conventions, clearly show that this clause was intended to
concern _only_ the power to tax. By the way, the government already uses
this power to help the poor: Donations to charities are tax deductable,
for example. This is taxing in a way which promotes the general welfare.

The government social programs we were discussing, by the way, are
justified (so they claim) by the power to "regulate Commerce... among
the several States." I believe the chain of logic is that reducing
poverty increases the market for interstate commerce, which is
reasonably related to promoting interstate commerce, which is
reasonably related to regulating interstate commerce and therefore
a power delegated to the federal government. As I said earlier, the kindest
thing you could call that is intellectual dishonesty.

>|>Surely you don't think Bush supporters don't feel imposed upon by the
>|>election of Clinton?  The majority set standards of behavior that are imposed
>|>upon the minority in many ways.  Break the law and you might go to jail.

>|Only if Clinton exceeds the limits set by the Constitution.

>Huh?

One of the basic assumptions of our government is that everyone agrees
to go along with the will of the majority as expressed by elections and
the political process _providing_ the majority stays within the bounds
of the Constitution. If Clinton were to exceed these bounds, Bush's
supporters would have every right to feel imposed on. In my opinion,
many of Clinton's proposals are of doubtfull constitutionality. (But
then, I think a great deal of our current federal government is also
of questionable constitutionality.)

>|The majority can't set _any_ standards of behavior and impose them on
>|minorities; nor can they make anything they like illegal and send dissidents
>|to jail.

>That clearly does NOT jibe with the historical record.  Behavior of the Klu
>Klux Klan and other hate groups have been suppressed by the will of the
>majority.

Where they are suppressed _by_law_ (as opposed to overwelming opposition
by private citizens), this is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
and/or First Amendment (depending on whether it's a state or a federal
law.)

Perhaps I should have said, "The majority can't legally set..." Also,
note that I said the majority couldn't set _any_ standards (E.g. their
power to enact laws against things they don't approve of is limitied.)
I didn't say the majority can enact _no_ standards and have _no_
power to legislate based on their opinions. You are citing examples
which are within these limits:

>Marriage has been restricted to a relationship between a pair of the
>opposite sex, severely cramping the livestyle of members of the LDS.

All enacted by local and state governments. My remark was in the
context of the limited powers granted to the federal government, and
is most accurate only with respect to the federal government. However,
the state government's don't have a completely free hand either: The
state constitutions place less sever, but still significant, restrictions
on the states.

In the case of Utah and their laws against polygamy, one of the federal
government's powers is to admit new states to the Union in whatever
manner Congress sees fit. Requiring a proposed state constitution
to include a specific law is certainly within this power. (By the
way, the fact that the majority, in my opinion, has abused this
power is a strong argument argument against the modend judicial
trend of taking the widest possible interpertation of the powers
granted in the Constitution: If the government can not be trusted with
its powers, it certainly should not be allowed to usurp additional
powers.)

>To protect the majority during WWII, our government interred thousands of citizen
>of Japanese descent.

I'm afraid I don't recall the justification for this action. The Supreme
Court held that it _was_ within the limits of the Constitution, although
this ruling is considered somewhat questionable. See Korematsu v. United
States, 323 US 214 (1944).

>Whether or not they should, the majority of this country
>have imposed their will upon minorities on numerous occasions.

That isn't really the question: Can they do so _legally_? No, not
in all cases. There are limits on these powers.

>|That presumes the altruists are a minority: How would government charities
>|be enacted if the people didn't really care?  Further, why is this a subject
>|that the government can legidimately [sic] use force to _make_ everyone
>|adopt the majority's moral views (of how much charity is appropriate?)

>Altruists are in the minority, and our government can legitimately impose fees
>to provide for the general welfare, not as charity, but as a reasonable fee for
>services.

Article One, Section Eight, Clause One of the Constitution does give
the federal government the authority to impose fees. However, the rest
of that section details how the government may _spend_ the money so collected.
I don't find any clause that empowers the government to spend money
on social programs. (This is not, inherently, an argument against
federal social porgrams: Simply that, to be constitutional, they
require an amendment to the Constitution to grant the federal government
such powers.)

>|>There is evidence that government can't solve ALL of our problems, but it
>|>certainly has solved more problems than the alternative.

>|Debatable, but without getting into that, the government has also _caused_
>|more problems than the alterantive [sic] (in the field of economic and moral
>|ledislation, [sic] at least.) It seems that the idea of limited government,
>|confined to a few narrow areas of legislation, is a good one: Only in
>|a few cases do [sic] the government do more good than harm, and it should
>|be strictly limited to these areas.

>I don't know what you mean, but the alternative of which I speak is anarchy
>(i.e., the lack of government), either partial or total.

I think we agree, for example, in the area of religion, governments have
done more harm than the alternative. (Is a lack of regulation on one
topic, religion, "partial anarchy"?)

>...Government, as an
>institution for imposing societal will upon individuals, can do (and has done)
>both good and evil.  But I still do not see how you can say in such general
>terms that our government as netted us more harm than good.

I'm considering the effects of government on a subject by subject basis.
In certain areas, they have done more harm than good. In others,
government intervention is overall beneficial. In most cases, government
is a good thing _if_ those in office act responsibly and a very
bad thing it they do not. In my opinion (and in the stated opinions
of the people who framed our Constitution) this risk of governmental
irresponsibiity is justified _only_ in areas where action by the
federal government is vital and unaviodable. Those areas are listed
in Article One, Section Eight (and one or two other places, such as
the various Amendments.)

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder