Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Congress is responsible for its laws and programs’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Medicare has been ruled constitutional, therefore the premise that federal government can not provide healthcare to citizens is moot.

If congress wants to repeal Obamacare they can do that. The bill to abolish it has to be passed by both houses of congress and then signed into law by the president. That's how laws are enacted, and how they are repealed. Holding the country hostage unless the President does what you want is certainly not constitutional.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

No where in the constitution does it give the government authority to have an Air Force.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Today's episode of "Obama is the only President in History to Over Reach" is brought to you by Don Olson.

"Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it allow the federal government to care for an individual's health."

Tell that to Reagan when he signed EMTALA
Tell that to Bush when he signed Medicare Part D

"President Obama has no right to change any part of a law, but only to execute the law as it is written."

And yet, I expect that the GOP will hold the country hostage over the debt ceiling in exchange for pushing back Obamacare for a year or more.

Also, pertaining to this, see "signing statements". They do exactly what you are ranting about.
And were put on steroids by George Bush (mostly with a GOP congress)

"enabled Congress and their staffs to avoid the increased insurance costs mandated to every citizen"

You may want to become more informed on this before writing a letter to the newspaper. It is easy to find the truth behind this, but your version is more effective at rallying the base.

Tune in for tomorrows episode. There will surely be one.

embarrassed Utahn!
Salt Lake City, UT

Utah is home to the most-patriotic, most-religious, most-moral people in the U.S. Ask anyone here!

Why then do so many of these compassionate, nationalistic, christlike people protest so adamantly and vehemently against helping the least fortunate of our fellow citizens?

As an atheist, I plead for Jesus to enlighten his followers.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

The letter writer would not know tyrant if one came up and bit him.

Tyranny was what we experienced during the Bush War/Economic collapse/Government spending Years.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

By Congress, I assume you mean both the House and the Senate, right? Because these two make up the Congress.

But, of course, any constitutional law also requires the consent of the Executive.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Those who mock Utahns because we believe in obeying the law as written and not as interpreted might want to rethink the basis of their argument.

What kind of people would demand that government do something that it is forbidden to do? What kind of politician would offer to do something that he is forbidden to do? What would you call those kinds of people? Ignorant? Arrogant? Crooks?

Literate people know that health-care is not a duty of the federal government, otherwise it would have been listed in Article 1, Section 8, or we would have passed an amendment and we would have assigned that duty to the Federal Government. Because it has not been assigned to the Federal Government, health-care is left to the States or to the People. It is not a question of "Christianity"; it is a question of law. There are NO LAWS that prohibit any American from being charitable but there are laws that prohibit the government from taxing us for services that the government is not authorized to furnish.

Christ invites. He does not force. Forced "charity" is not Christianity. Force was never part of Christ's plan.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Nowhere in the Constitution are national parks mentioned. I guess we'd better defund them and shut them down. This is government tyranny to the extreme.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Mike Richards,
Health care is not listed in Article 1 Section 8 for the same reason that the First Amendment guarantee of a free press does not mention the Internet. The Founders couldn't enumerate something they didn't have. The ACA is nonetheless absolutely Constitutional. See Commerce clause, see also General Welfare clause. You're making an argument based on, not the Constitution, but your own idiosyncratic view of the Constitution. Most Americans, and 98 percent of legal scholars disagree with you. In future, please include some qualifying statement, using language like 'in my view' or 'according to my reading'.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I'm still waiting for Congress to declare War in Afghanistan and Iraq...

Mike Richards, where's your outrage over THAT little usurping and trampling of the Constitution?
or
Bush's Patriot Act and nearly 100% support from Republicans of denying due process, illegal search and seizure, and our Constitutional right to privacy?

or
most likely, this is more of the same rhetoric and sour grapes over "general welfare" and taxation which btw, has already been found fully constitutional?

One final comment;
You keep saying over and over again that America is a "Christian" nation based on "Christian" law.

I remind you then, Christ gave away Healthcare to all for free, and commanded us to do likewise.
So, are you a Christian or not?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Unlike so many people today, whose knowledge of "civics" is limited to what they hear from their favorite politician, the Founding Fathers knew the difference between Federal, State and Local governments. They knew that the purpose of the Federal Government was to defend the federation of states against all enemies, foreign or domestic and that almost every other duty was to be left to lower levels of government.

Of course there were no national parks because the federal government owned no land except for the small District of Columbia which was the seat of government.

The Federal Government is limited in authority to those duties assigned to it in the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, regardless of what Obama thinks or tells us.

Nowhere in the Constitution is "personal welfare" ever assigned to the Federal Government. The responsibility to care for ourselves and for those whom we have stewardship responsibility is not a duty of the Federal Government.

Those who judge us because their understanding of Chirst is so shallow that they would force us to follow Christ's teachings know too little of Christ or His doctrines to tell what Christ's doctrines are.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Time for opposition to Affordable Health Care to lose the religious and dogmatic radical views.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@Mike Richards
You claim this law isn't constitutional and was somehow tyrannically passed. Yet it was passed by the House, Senate and signed into law by the President(clearly going through the normal channels to pass a law makes Obama a dictator....). When some groups thought it wasn't constitutional they sued, all of the way to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS then ruled that the law didn't violate the constitution. You may not like it, but the ACA constitutionality has been tested and according to the rules and laws of the United States it absolutely is constitutional. You may not like it, you can even say we should defund the law. If a law has been approved by the SCOTUS it IS constitutional. It's how the constitution works.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Re: "President Obama has no right to change any part of a law, but only to execute the law as it is written."

This, of course, is a reference to signing statements that the president sometimes makes when signing legislation. I suspect that if we compared the signing statements by President Bush with those of President Obama, we'd find that Bush made far, far more of them and that his statements were constitutionally far weaker than Obama's. If we further investigated, I suspect we'd find that those complaining loudly about Obama's statements were quite silent about those of Bush.

And for those who seem to detest Obama and everything he does, let's remember these enlightening words: "Obama is NOT a foreign-born, brown-skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away health care. You're thinking of Jesus."

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

"They knew that the purpose of the Federal Government was to defend the federation of states against all enemies, foreign or domestic"

==============

Why is an invasion from China any more serious than a flu epidemic? Or an AIDS scare? All enemies does not mean military.

A healthy populace is simply more productive, easier to govern, and just more humane.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to declare war and to tax us to pay for that declared war. The "War Power's Act" requires that Congress act within sixty-days of military engagement initiated under the authority of the President as Commander In Chief. Nothng that I've read in the Constitution REQUIRES that Congress declare war before sending the military into action. Having the AUTHORITY to do something is separate from being REQUIRED to do something. The President has limited authority to send the military into action. His "authority" is controlled by Congress - after the 60-day time limit.

That brings us back to the subject of the letter. Congress is responsible to legislate. Congress is responsible to fund all legislation. The President's role is to enforce ALL of the laws passed by Congress. The role of the Court is to verify that every law legislated is legal and binding.

Too often, the President self-extends his authority to legislate. Too often, the Court also self-extends its authority to legislate. Only Congress has authority to legislate, unless those other branches are so arrogant to assume that they are above the law.

John20000
Cedar Hills, UT

The best session of Congress is when no new laws are passed. We can self-govern, can't we?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

"Nowhere in the Constitution"? What about the clear provision in 1.8 that Congress shall have power to "provide for the general welfare"? Medical care provides for the general welfare by preventing epidemics, rampant disease, and premature death. Congress clearly DOES have the power to provide for health care.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@Mike Richards
10:13 a.m. Aug. 21, 2013

=======

Thanks for the comment.

House passed - check.
Senate passed - check.
President signs - check.
SCOTUS un-holds - check.

It seems "someone" is fighting against our Constitution and form of Government.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality of ObamaCare as a TAX. The Court declared that it was a tax. The Court declared that Congress can impose taxes. The Court ruled that elections have consequences. The Court would not declare that the ObamaCare TAX is Constitutional because the taxation part of the law had not been implemented. The Supreme Court is an appelate court. It hears appeals. No federal court has ruled on the legality of ObamaCare as a tax; therefore, the Supreme Court cannot rule whether ObamaCara as a tax is legal or not until damages are presented and a lower court first rules.

Those who tell us that the Court ruled that ObamaCare is legal did not read the ruling or they are deliberately misleading those who have not read the ruling.

Are we so ignorant of how the government works that we would blindly accept the opinions of those who post incognito as spokesmen for the Supreme Court?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments