Comments about ‘Letter: The 10th Amendment is under attack with government-mandated health care’

"with the complicity of the states, the press, Congress, the courts, both political parties and the people in general"

So the vast majority of our citizens and institutions have concluded that the 10th amendment isn't as powerful and all-controlling as the writer imagines. That sounds to me like government of the people, by the people, and for the people, just what the Constitution is supposed to establish. Yet the writer, ignoring such things as the supremacy clause, clings to the idea that states have more clout than the federal government--an idea that lost its vitality, if it ever had any, in the Civil War. Get over it. I, for one, am glad that the federal government can reign in maverick states that want to secede in spirit if not literally. I love to see Old Glory flying above every state flag, as it should.

Now we'll wait for the inevitable opposing viewpoint from Mike Richards and his friends.

It seems popular to attack the federal government lately, but it still represents us and our wishes through the legislators we send to Washington, D.C. I, too, often disagree with its decisions, but remain loyal to it.

If the states choose to cooperate on health care, how have they lost their rights? Hasn't the Supreme Court already heard a thorough discussion of the 10th amendment as it relates to health care?

Yes. And if you disagree you may persuade others to send different legislators, a different president to appoint Supreme Court justices, and/or persuade the current leaders to change their minds. Let's all be more involved to make sure our government represents all of us.

This letter is another example of an amateur constitutionalist interpetting things to fit his position. I suggest coming back to us after after you have spent time as an expert. You should spend your time worrying about saving people rather than finding ways to kill them by letting insurance companies determine what healthcare each of us are allowed to receive.

The world has become a horrible mess when those in power want to allow access to healthcare to it's citizens without the fear of bankruptcy.
Look how horrible those nations, with healthcare, have become. Canada, England, Germany, the Scandanavian countries. What horrible places to live.
I, for one, want to over pay for healthcare. I think those kids who get sick should have to pay medical bills their entire life.
All the while we need to keep increasing defense spending. Keep buying ships and bombs. That'll make the country great again.

"the colonists were adamant about setting up a system of government that was limited, constrained and, most importantly, immune from future tampering by Congress." "The colonists" is incorrect because there was a sizable faction of federalists who very much wanted a strong national government. Those who opposed to a strong national government didn't even want the constitution.

Someone needs a history lesson

""the colonists were adamant about setting up a system of government that was limited, constrained and, most importantly, immune from future tampering by Congress." They tried it, it was called the Articles of Confederation...they failed miserably. Instead, they acted like 13 nation-states, kind of what the letter writer is wanting. They were no longer colonists either.

The point of the Constitution was to create a strong national government, and divide that power among 3 branches with checks and balances.

The tenth ammendment has been interpreted as being a truism, meaning it changes nothing that was originally written in the Constitution, nor adds anyhting to it.

Seems to me that the States can still determine what kind of Health Care Plan they want as long as they don't seek nullify the federal program. At least one state is looking to provide medical services with the state acting as the "single payer". The writer seems to be over concerned that the veritable "sky is falling".

Kind of reminds me of a time, not so long ago, when certain forces were warning us that fluoride in our water as a communist plot to poison our minds. A majority of supreme court justices would also disagree with the writer.

You know, the competition is very fierce this week, but I would argue that this letter should win the competition for 'silliest letter of the week.'

The left delights in tearing down the Constitution or in ignoring it completely.

The Federal level of government was meant to be a weak level except for the military. To keep it weak, it was broken into three co-equal branches so that no President, no Congress and no Court could ever gain power over the people. The ensure that it was weak, EACH AUTHORIZED DUTY was listed (enumerated). Congress ONLY has authority to tax us for those authorized duties. All other duties are to be left to the States or to the people.

Todays' comments shows how many mock the Constitution, how many twist its purpose, and how many are quick to mock those who honor and respect the Constitution.

The President himself mocks the Constitution by refusing to perform his duties as required by law. He refuses to enforce the laws passed by Congress. He puts himself above the law. Those who join with him in mocking States' Rights, also put themselves above the law.

Read the Court's decision. Obamacare was declared to be a TAX. Congress is authorized to tax us. We can easily change the presidency and congress in the next election.

ok, unfortunately the supreme court disagrees with the writer of this letter, and their opinion is the only one that carries any weight.

Citizens of the United States are under attack by Health Insurance Companies.

How can the writer of this letter not see and understand that fundamental fact?

The Affordable Care Act is the first and ONLY attempt by our Congress to right that wrong.

Who will benefit by its destruction?

Not the ordinary American.

Curmudgeon -- it didn't take long, did it?

The healthcare bill has a provision that allows all states the option to opt out of the bill if they can develop a system of their own that somehow makes sure at least as many people have coverage and is no more expensive. So if you want state gov't to decide it... then bug them to do something better, then they can opt out in 2014 when Obamacare goes fully into effect, that's what Vermont will do (they're the one state that has opted out so far by making their own plan, single-payer).

@Mike Richards - it's good advice to read the ruling - it's long, complex and contradictory. For the purposes of the Anti-Injunction act, all the justices held that the Mandate was a penalty, not a tax. In upholding the mandate, the majority held that the mandate was a tax within Congress' power. IOW, the court said the mandate is both a penalty and tax and within Congress' power to enact and enforce.

The Framers didn't want a weak government - they'd had one and it failed. Between 1776 and 1789, our nation had the Articles of Confederation, which created a weak federal government. It failed to function. So the Framers crafted a new governing document - the Constitution - explicitly creating a stronger federal government. Your claim that the founders wanted a weak federal government is not historically accurate.

Your statement that the left delights is tearing down or ignoring the Constitution is cheap rhetoric. Disagreeing about what it means and its implications is not destroying the Constitution. We can disagree about the role of government without either of us being unpatriotic or unAmerican.

Vidar,

The Court did not authorize Obamacare and it did not declare that Congress has any authority to involve itself in healthcare. What the Court did was to declare Obamacare a TAX, and as a TAX, the Court cannot rule on whether that tax is legal until after the TAX is in effect and damages can be examined.

Those who say that the Court "approved" or "authorized" Obamacare have not read the decision.

If Obamacare is not overthrown by the next Congress and by the next President, the Court will again have to visit Obamacare.

The Court has already told the States that they have RIGHTS against the Federal Government using force to intimidate a State into being part of Obamacare. That sounds an awful lot like the Court putting the Federal Government on notice that it will stand with the States and uphold their rights against the Federal Government use of any intimidation to force compliance.

We need single payer health care. Not insurance.

Might we assume that the letter writer is opposed to Social Security and Medicare and will refuse to participate in either program? Or does the letter writer believe, as many Tea Party folk opposed to any government involvement in our lives, that both Social Security and Medicare are not government-sponsored programs?

Perhaps the letter writer prefers that we all return to those times before the Civil dWar when people were truly on their own, grew their own food, made their own clothes, had neither fire or police protection in their community, lived out their short lives hoping that neither sickness nor injury claimed them before their time?

Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah

For several years now you have espoused a very narrow interpretation of the Constitution. That is fine, but you appear to insist that everyone else accedpt the same interpretation. However, even members of the U.S. Supreme Court have different interpretations. And this is fine as long as they exercise due diligence in developing their respective arguments.

Now, I understand that teaching critical thinking skills in schools is under attack in Texas by the Texas Republican Party. Should Utah also attempt to develop such a prohibition in Utah schools? In this way, a single, conservative interpretion of the Constitution can be taught and anyone who thinks otherwise could be punished. Having such a strict "orginal intent" approach will certainly deal a blow to those Leftist many conservatives appear to vilify and want run out of the county on a rail!

Imagine if we all thought the same? The arch-conservative forces in the community would be estatic know that no one would disagree with them. But then again, how would be develop an understanding of how the Founders thought about the Internet and a multitude of issues not even imagined in the late 18th Century?

@J Thompson

Clearly you didn't read the ruling because it was clearly upheld as legal on the basis of the power to tax so it was authorized.

"The Court has already told the States that they have RIGHTS against the Federal Government using force to intimidate a State into being part of Obamacare."

Also false, goodness, at least read a summary of what they did. The court told the states that they have rights against the Federal Government using force to intimitdate a state into the medicaid expansion. They're still obligated to set up health exchanges or else the federal gov't will do it.

@Curmudgeon:

"Yet the writer, ignoring such things as the supremacy clause, clings to the idea that states have more clout than the federal government..."

Therein lies a flaw in the constitution. The 10th Amendment allocates powers not delegated to the United States (Article 1.8), to that states and the people. Yet, the Supremacy Clause empowers the United States to top all disparate state laws.

Would love to have someone enumerate powers the fed does not have and that are 'reserved to the states and the people.' Anyone? anyone? Bueller?

"... an idea that lost its vitality, if it ever had any, in the Civil War."

I doubt if the fed would want another Civil War. One's enough. But... look for California to secede (and be annexed to Mexico) as soon as they get a majority Hispanic. Won't take long.