Comments about ‘Letter: Federal intervention’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Nov. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

Re: Twin Lights

"Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't know about this thing called the Federalist Papers . . ."

Too bad the Federalist Papers are simply opinions written by some people. They are not representative of all the Founding Father's opinions. Other Founding Fathers had different opinions. Too bad they are not official governement documents either.

Re: Mountanman

"@ Roland. You should consider moving to Cuba, N. Korea or Iran. They have lots of government intervention! Just think how very happy you could be there with the government controlling your life!"

Why would Roland move to any of those countries? He already lives in Utah, which does very well with their government intervention controlling citizens' lives.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

@red state pride
12:20 p.m. Nov. 15, 2013

@ Open minded Mormon- how is it what Walmart does treasonous?

[The FoundingFathers slapped huge tariffs on foreign made goods -- they were smart enough to realize it was the only way to stay a free and independant Nation.]

My comment was directed at Roland who...prefers (single payer)
Of course they all want single payer.

[as do I - that explains us contributing to that 59% who don't want Obamacare.]

At least Conservatives are honest about what they want and don't try to backdoor everything-

[You mean like when Sen. Mike Lee said he'd shutdwon the Government, and then he said he didn't?]

If you knew anything about 1776 you'd know...

[Benjamin Franklin went to England repreesenting the British citizens in the Amwerican Colonies. He was berated, mocked, and ridiculed by the "Lords" in Parliment, as being subhuman, told they were not British at all. Franklin later wrote - "I went in as loyal citizen of Great Britan, I went out an American." He returned and signed the Declartion of Independance.]

- unlike you I like free choice.
[So, you now support pro-choice, marijuana, and gay marriage?]

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I think it's kinda bogus to compare Governments and Corporations as if they are the same (in your list of employers). Government employers and corporate employers are obviously not an apple-apple comparison. If it were... you could easily say the US Government was the biggest employer.

The DOD and the Red Army don't belong in the same list as McDonalds and Walmart. Do you really think the Red Army or the DOD report all their spending like a corporation on the stock exchange? Not hardly.

If you combined all healthcare companies, clinics, hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc, and all the insurance companies in the United States, and grouped them into one big corporation (which is what the British health service is)... It would be pretty big. I don't know if DOD or Red Army big... but it's big.

This may be fun to bicker about which is the biggest employer... but it really has nothing to do with the topic.

Regardless of whether the British health service is #3 or not... is it really the role of a Constitutional Republic (like the US Government) to be running a humungous Healthcare Company?

William Gronberg
Payson, UT

Don Olsen said in his letter:

"The U.S. Constitution ... does not grant the federal government the right to deal in the lives of individuals."

Get real Don.

I avoided being DRAFTED into the U S Army in 1973 by JOINING the U S Army Reserve. I, as an individual, decided to have a little say in my life and fate. Being 1-A, and 22 years of age at the time, my "federal government" had plans for my next 2 years. I call that "deal"ing "in the lives of individuals".

What do you think Don? Did the draft "deal in the lives of individuals"?

William Gronberg
Payson, UT


The year was 1963. Sort of pre-Vietnam. Almost all of my drill instructors had already been there as of the spring of 1964 at Fort Ord, California. B-2-3.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY


Sorry. I guess my sarcasm light was not on.

My point was that folks wax on and on and ON about the Constitution or the Federalist Papers like they just discovered them in a box somewhere and are the first to read them.

The truth is there are folks on both sides of nearly every issue who are quite familiar with these documents. That familiarity does not provide us with a neat resolution to the issues we grapple with.

But, I do think the Federalist Papers are helpful for understanding the founders' original intent. Not that that should be our only guide, but it is helpful.


red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@open minded mormon
I'm pro-choice as long as the unborn baby also gets a choice whether to live or die. I believe the decisions you present me with should be left up to states and not forced down the throats of everyone in a nation of 300 million people. I am personally opposed to legalized marijuana but I think the citizens of the different states should decide that for themselves. I have no problem with CO and Wa legalizing marijuana use. I am personally opposed to gay marriage but if the people of Vermont for example wants gay marriage more power to them. But as a good liberal you can't tolerate people who don't think like you. You and your kind want to force everyone into the same lousy health care system and to force everyone to accept unlimited abortions, gay marriage etc It's true that those who preach tolerance the loudest are always the most intolerant.

Poplar Grove, UT

@Red State Pride
Speaking to you as one of the liberals you mentioned, let me point out that gay marriage and marijuana are very different issues than "forcing everyone into the same lousy healthcare system" What is your solution to having the highest cost of coverage in the world? Every single person in this country will eventually utilize the healthcare system, and healthcare is expensive, and an unexpected illness could cost you thousands to millions of dollars, ie, a broken leg treated at the ER without insurance is going to be 5 grand, if you get severely burned or a flesh eating disease or need a transplant you can rack up millions of dollars in medical expenses in a couple months. And without insurance everyone else gets stuck with the bill. How do you deal with this problem without everyone being covered? Whether it's a free market solution like the ACA, a single payer, ie Medicare for all, or universal healthcare(like the NHS in England) If you don't like those options what do you do beside means testing before covering patients? Because the old system isn't working for anyone.

S. Jordan, UT

"promote the general welfare"
"Your fear of Federal intervention is unwarranted."

Remember when a fire was used to demonize a group of people (the communists) and the resultant fascist state that arose. Words like these were used. Do I think we are headed the same direction? Not sure, but I do see a dependent class that will accept anything in exchange for a loaf of bread (Obama phone?). The conditions are being set for the same kind of movement that gave rise to one of the most brutal regimes in history.

I pray that we are not headed in that direction but the potentials are there.

The solution is to maintain the idea of negative rights for the government. John Roberts encroached on that fine line with his ruling on the ACA. Sad.

Now we have a president modifying the law of the land without congressional approval (anybody remember the "enabling act of 1933"?)

I am not a revolutionary...I just remember my history.

American Fork, UT

Therefore, health care should be a federal (inter-state) affair, available to and paid for by all regardless of location, and free of interference from states, employers or churches.

E Sam
Provo, UT

Let's see. The ACA was passed by the House and Senate. It was signed into law by the President. Its constitutionality was challenged, and reviewed by the Supreme Court. It was found constitution, in a decision written by the Chief Justice. So, yeah, it's Constitutional, entirely and completely.
Now, can we talk about something interesting?

Phoenix, AZ

@Mike in Cedar City: "... Aren't you forgetting about the preamble to the constitution that authorizes the Federal Government to 'promote the general welfare?'"

Therein lies the problem. Obamacare is 'specific' welfare. 'General' welfare covers things like assuring clean air/water (EPA), secure banks (FDIC), safe air travel (FAA), regulated communications (FCC), secure borders (DHS), etc.

@Roland Kayser: "Average health care spending (insurance plus out of pocket costs) per person was $8,508 in the U.S. in 2011...."

The US is high because of affluence. Americans have more money to spend on healthcare compared to, say, New Zealand Maoris.

@2 bits: "How is Obama improving these figures?"

Easy... he will decide who gets care... especially when it comes to the elderly who've passed useful time of life (called death panels). We know because Obama has already told these folks to... 'go home and pain a painkiller.' This will save billions since oldsters require substantially more care.

@Irony Guy: "A good argument can be made that health care is interstate commerce and thus falls under the purview of Congress."

Congress is to 'regulate' not 'own' commerce. And only 'interstate' kind.

Phoenix, AZ

@E Sam:
"The ACA was passed by the House and Senate."

... With absolutely zero, nil, nada Republican support or vote.

"Its constitutionality was challenged, and reviewed by the Supreme Court. It was found constitution..."

The court ruled only that the 'penalty' could be assessed and collected under constitutional taxing authority as a 'tax.' The court held that the law could not be upheld under the Commerce Clause, which was the government's primary argument in its support. The court said, 'The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.'

"Now, can we talk about something interesting?"

Yeah, let's talk about immigration law... which Obama has not only completely ignored enforcement but violated it by giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA


Raising the Reichstag fire in the context of current American politics requires considerable substantiation, not vague accusatory whispers and comments about remembering history. I remember history too, and more importantly I remember the context of that history. I get that people feel strongly about the current administration. But if you're going to put that sort of parallel out there, back it up.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

When we say that we have too many governments, we are not just talking about the federal, state, county and every neighborhood has a government, we also must include religion, race, sex, school and business and also mom and dad.

We need many different governments because we need to be controlled in so many ways. Ideally we would divide the controlling influence between the governments allowing each to control a specific area of our lives. Trouble is, when we give someone the right to control our life, they often use that control to glom onto our wealth. The real trouble comes when several of the governments want to control the same areas of activity.

We should have a national referendum to change our Constitution to eliminate the excessive governments and give us a plan for living in our century and not that of 200 years ago.

The existing governments will never allow themselves to be eliminated voluntarily, so it must be done by the people, hopefully by vote but if necessary, by any means available. As alluded to in the Declaration of Independence.

Do you want to be an American or governed by some other entity?

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT


The largest, organizations in the world are religions. They control more money, more people and more land than any other government or business operation. And they are dictatorial in their government.

S. Jordan, UT

Re:Res Novae

I am glad you are not ignorant to the events I was alluding to.

So...I assume you read the rest of my post as well. The events I refer to indicate a pattern. I was expressing my fears that some of the elements exist in our country today. Unfortunatley a four post limit at 200 words at a time do not do justice to any topic.

I am assuming by the tone of your response that you disagree with me? You said "But if you're going to put that sort of parallel out there, back it up."

I did give two examples of where I felt there were parallel events that suggested steps outside of the bounds of the proper role of our leaders. I could name many more. Do you disagree that our president has operated outside the bounds of his appointed role? I hope that you will not cite the actions of Bush because I believe that he stepped outside the bounds of his role as well. We need to bring each branch of government back into their appropriate roles to preserve our constitution. There have been many precedences set recently that endanger us.

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA


No, the give and take of branches of government has been a feature throughout American history. The Reichstag fire has nothing in common with that history. There is nothing like it in American history, except in the minds of those who think the CIA killed Kennedy and the World Trade Center was part of a Bush plot. You certainly have offered up nothing comparable to it.

Perspective is necessary. Finding fascism in the acts of our leaders is a serious charge requiring substantiation. Invoking the spectre of the Third Reich is irresponsible and inimical to the civil discourse our nation needs.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY


Please look up Godwin's Law.

Salt Lake City, UT

You are right, 2Bits, it is not the words General Welfare that are in the Preamble that are the point, it is the words General Welfare that is in Article I, section 8 that is the issue: "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; "

". . . provide for the common defense and general Welfare. . . "

Now we just have to define what "general Welfare" means. And how do you think we do that? That's right, through SCOTUS. A procedure that is laid out in the Constitution.

to comment

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