Justice Scalia And Constitutional Fundementals

1. 88

   GA Andersonposted 10 months ago

   Fundamentals - the foundation of every argument. This one is about the dangers of centralized government.
   
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Can't wait to see where this thread goes.

      replyreport
2. 91

   Nathanvilleposted 10 months ago

   Centralisation of Power provides cohesion; which in a crisis, and any issue of national interest is essential – rather than a free-for-all anarchy where each State does its own thing.
   
   Sure, too much centralised power may not always be a good thing; just as much as too little centralised power is bad.  Surely the answer shouldn’t be a ‘them and us’, but a balanced approach to power between centralised and local/regional/State governments?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      That "balanced approach" is absolutely necessary.  But it does not mean an unending granting of more power and ever  more money to the centralized government and that's where the US is now.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         That’s not the perception we get from across the pond; the perception from this side of the pond is that it’s the reverse e.g. that the States are forever wrestling power away from the Federal Government, leaving America a fragmented country e.g. more as if it was 50 individual countries rather than one nation?
         
         Very much of the case "United we Stand, Divided we Fall"; A lack of "Unity in Strength" etc.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Then your perception is very badly skewed.  Keep in mind that the power over purse strings is a very efffective method of control and that our federal government increases their spending nearly every year.
            
            In addition, there is an ever increasing number of federal laws affecting people in every state - Obamacare is the more recent and more egregious example.  There are hundreds (thousands?) more.
            
            The ONLY instance I can think of where states wrested power from the feds is the court decision that RvsW was illegal.  That's it - they have not succeeded anywhere else that I can think of.

            replyreport
            1. 91

               Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

               My perception is likely to be a little skewed simply because if you don’t live in a country you can never get a full appreciation of what’s it’s like to live there; but I’m not so sure that it’s “very badly skewed”, just a different perspective based on different cultural, social and political values.
               
               Taking your first point “federal government increases in spending nearly every year”; I’ve gathered the raw data for key points including increase in federal government expenditure (in monetary terms) overtime, the decrease in spending power per $ (inflation) and taxation levels.
               
               Looking at the data I gathered covering a period from 1930 to 2023 obviously some of the increase in federal government expenditure in momentary terms overtime is due to inflation; but inflation doesn’t account for all of it – when inflation is taken into account, over the time period covered (1930-2023) there has been a steady increase in ‘real terms’ of federal government expenditure.
               
               However, interestingly, taxation levels (percentages on income) in the USA was at its highest from WW2 to the 1980s, and since the 1980s has declined, so now (generally speaking) Americans are paying about half the tax (in real terms) than they were paying decades ago; which would largely explain why America currently has a national debt crisis, which is set to only get worse in the years ahead.
               
               So, unlike the UK, where our government has a handle on the situation, and Britain’s future looks brighter; looking at the data I gathered this morning makes for grim reading for the USA?
               
               Notwithstanding the above, I still question some of the finer points e.g. from what I see, America is more like 50 separate countries rather than one united country.  It seems to me that in America you spend 2 years having an election campaign for the next President, who’s in power and able to get policies pushed through the Senate and House of Representatives for just 2 years, and then with a change of balance of power spends the last 2 years (while the next election campaign starts) struggling to get policies through.  In contrast, in the UK, our Government is elected for 5 years, and under the British Constitution, the election campaign is restricted to just 6 weeks (giving more stability).
               
               It still comes back to the point that the States have a lot of power, in my view too much power e.g. the Federal Government wouldn’t be able to abolish capital punishment across the whole of the USA, even if it wanted to; the Federal Government can’t make abortions legal across the whole of the USA; the Federal Government can’t make sweeping nationwide changes to help the environment and reduce carbon emissions.  Even during the pandemic it was impossible to enforce nationwide strategy to fight the pandemic; a lot of the measures were in the hands on individual States, so the effectiveness of the campaign to fight covid seemed rather patchy.
               
               Obviously your views are going to be different to what I’ve expressed above because of our different cultural, social and political views.
               
               But focusing on your last point “Obamacare”:  My understanding is that Obamacare, in its original format was largely quashed by the Republicans and any remnants of it is just a weak water downed version?   Notwithstanding that although Obamacare was meant to emulate a healthcare system similar to European systems; even in its original format, it fell far short of achieving that – but perhaps (from my European perspective, a step in the right direction)?
               
               Even so, in 2022, Medicare & Medicaid (which I assume is what Obamacare is) accounts for just 5.4% of GDP; in contrast to the UK where the NHS is 11.9% of GDP.  So from my perspective, for a good ‘universal healthcare’ system the USA Federal Government isn’t spending enough on healthcare – but that’s just my opinion.
               
               This is how much and on what our UK Government is Expenditure:-
               
               •    Social protection (Welfare State and State Pensions) = £256 billion ($335 billion)
               •    NHS = £166 billion ($217 billion)
               •    Education = £103 billion ($135 billion)
               •    Defence = £52 billion ($68 billion)
               •    Debt interest = £43 billion ($56 billion)
               •    Transport = £37 billion ($48 billion)
               •    Public order and safety    e.g. police = £35 billion ($46 billion)
               •    Personal social services    = £34 billion ($45 billion)
               •    Housing and environment = £32 billion ($42 billion)
               •    Industry, agriculture and employment = £25 billion ($33 billion)
               •    Other = £58 billion ($76 billion)
               
               How does the above compare to the USA Federal Government spending, and what does it mean e.g. in the USA Medicare & Medicaid costs the Federal Government $1,339; over 6 times more in monetary terms than the cost for the NHS in the UK, which as the UK population is a 5th smaller than the USA population suggests that Medicare & Medicaid is costing Americans more per capita than it costs in the UK; yet unlike the NHS, which is a full comprehensive universal healthcare system that is free to all at the point of use; Medicare & Medicaid are limited in scope and cover? 
               
               So why does the USA struggle with its healthcare system e.g. predominately costly private insurance; while most of the rest of the West provide cheaper and efficient universal healthcare for all?  Does it have anything to do with the fact that the USA is fragmented into 50 entities, so that no Federal Government in the USA can ever make sweeping changes that would be required to reform the American healthcare system, or are there others issues?
               
               Spending in chart below is in $billion's
               
               
               
               Not surprisingly, as shown in the above chart; Federal Government peaked during the pandemic, but has since dropped back again to near pre-pandemic levels.
               
               

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  You are right - we will never agree on the reasonable functions of a central government.  Part of the reason, I think, is the vast diversity of the US population compared to the UK.  The entire UK is but the area of one medium sized US state - you simply cannot have the diverse kinds of society/culture that we must deal with on a daily basis.
                  
                  Won't get into health care except to note that Obamacare is NOT medicare or medicaid - neither have anything at all to do with ObamaCare.  Whether socialized medicine produces a good health care system is debatable, and even in your country a great many people find that the meager benefits of the system virtually mandate buying insurance.
                  
                  But one of the things I did not make clear was the control of federal government over state spending.  Example - years ago (mid 70's) we had a gas crunch, with the price going up and availability going down.  The federal solution was to mandate a country wide speed limit of 55mph, regardless of state laws.  And if the state didn't conform, they lost their portion of road funding from the feds, virtually shutting down any major maintenance or new construction.  This concept has grown considerably - want a new museum for your city and its residents?  The feds will pick up most of the tab.  Want a new water treatment for the people of your city, that refuse to maintain what they have or build a new system?  The feds will pay for it with money from people across the country. 
                  
                  Almost every large state project contains large amounts of federal money.  Road construction/maintenance has gotten to the point that states are borrowing against future federal funds (call Garvey bonds) to fund today's needs.  And with all of this money comes strings - do what the feds want or you won't get all that free money from people living elsewhere...so states comply.  Federal control over nearly every aspect is enormous just because they control the purse strings.

                  replyreport
                  1. 91

                     Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                     Where you say, to quote:
                     
                     “Whether socialized medicine produces a good health care system is debatable, and even in your country a great many people find that the meagre benefits of the system virtually mandate buying insurance.”
                     
                     Really?  That’s News to me:  Where did you get that American propaganda from? 
                     
                     I’ve never ever known anyone in Britain paying for, or wanting to buy, medical insurance in preference to the NHS; even the Royal family uses the NHS e.g. on 1st March 2021 Prince Philip Duke of Edenborough (the Queen’s husband) was transferred to an NHS hospital by an NHS ambulance for medical treatment on his heart.  So if it’s good enough for the Royal Family, it’s good enough for everyone else.
                     
                     If you look at the public opinion polls you will find that currently the NHS is liked by 71% of the British population, and disliked by only 6%:  So that doesn’t fit in with your claims in any shape or form:  https://yougov.co.uk/topics/technology/ … t=trackers
                     
                     And what do you mean by the “meagre benefits of the system”; when I was rushed to hospital in an ambulance in 2020, and spent three weeks there, I had full medical treatment; and a comprehensive follow-up since, with frequent and regular check-ups and tests; my next set of tests are due to be done on 3rd August, followed up by an appointment to see my hospital consultant on the 10th August.  And in spite of the very comprehensive care I’ve had from the NHS, it hasn’t cost me a single penny; even all the medication I had to take when I first came out of hospital was all free.
                     
                     If Medicare or Medicaid are not part of Obamacare then I guess that Obamacare is a dead duck killed off by the Republicans?
                     
                     Getting back to your other points:-
                     
                     Yep, I know that the UK is small compared to the USA, but size isn’t everything, we might be small, but with Northern Ireland and Scotland in particular, and the North/South divide we have as much diversity in society/culture as the USA.  Apart from which the EU has a far bigger population than the USA, with a very diverse society/culture, yet the EU does manage to find a balance between central and Regional (State/Country) level that generally works.
                     
                     Yes, you did make clear the control of federal government over state spending; I get that – the question is whether the balance is right?  In my opinion, as a European and Socialist is that in the USA the Federal Government doesn’t have enough control – in contrast to your opinion as an American Republican, where you see the reverse.  There isn’t a right or wrong – we just have different opinions because we come from different cultures.
                     
                     Getting back to the examples you give: 
                     
                     Yep I remember the oil crisis in the 1970s.  Our central Government took similar measures briefly from 8th December 1973 to 8th May 1974, when it reduced the speed limit from 70mph to 50mph.
                     
                     The only difference is that unlike in the USA, our central Government had the good sense to make it just a temporary speed restriction, just to cover the oil crisis; and as soon as the crisis had ended the speed limit was raised back to 70mph again.
                     
                     In the UK we have the reverse problem to you e.g. although the local governments in the UK can’t raise the speed limit above the national levels set by national government; they can and do lower them, to annoyance of drivers.  The national speed limit (set by the national government) for city roads (urban areas) is 30mph, but many local governments lower that to just 20mph within their boundaries.
                     
                     What you describe for the USA is a similar relationship between local governments and the central government in the UK.  In the UK local governments get 23% of their funding from the central government, and likewise in the UK, with that funding comes strings.  So I do understand what you are saying; it’s just that in the UK rather than the central government controlling local governments as you claim happens in the States, in the UK it’s more of a question of the central government keeping local governments in check, to help better ensure that national policies are not undermined at local level e.g. it helps to make central government more effective in its policies to control health, education, employment, inflation and all the other social issues that the government was elected to tackle.
                     
                     Yep, like where you say “do what the feds want or you won't get all that free money”; it’s not that different in the UK; a prime example, as a way of encourage local governments to recycle waste rather than just send it to landfill, since 1996 local governments are charges a landfill tax by the central government; the current tax rate that local governments have to pay to the central government is £102 ($133) per tonne of waste that’s sent to landfill.  1 tonne = 1.1 ton, so that’s a tax on local governments by the central government for using landfill instead of recycling of $146 per ton of waste sent to landfills.
                     
                     Obviously most British people applaud the UK Government for imposing such a tax on local governments because it helps to force local governments to take recycling more seriously; but I suspect you may have an opposing view?

                     replyreport
                  2. 91

                     Nathanvilleposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                     Further to my previous comments - Another example of conflict with the central UK Government is the long outstanding friction between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. 
                     
                     The UK Government didn’t interfere when Scotland and Wales lowered the voting age in Scotland and Wales to 16; but in January the UK Government blocked a Bill passed in the Scottish from getting Royal Assent and becoming law.  The Bill if it had become law would have allowed transgenders in Scotland to obtain a legal certificate of change of gender without the need of medical confirmation, and would also have allowed transgenders as young as 16 to legally change their gender status.
                     
                     With the already long outstanding fractious relationship between Scotland and England, this unprecedented move by the British Government really pissed-off the Scottish Government.  The current situation is that the Scottish Government is seeking a ‘judicial review’ e.g. for the matter to be resolved in the Supreme Court.
                     
                     So just another example of diversity in society/culture in the UK - one of many!
                     
                     UK government blocks Scottish gender recognition reforms https://youtu.be/0wGWYjI_0bI

                     replyreport