During an interview regarding obamas healthcare Governor Tim Pawlenty is asked for his thoughts. A brief clip is then shown of Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota wherein he refers to the plans of obama and says there might be a case to use the 10th Amendment. Some background on Governor Pawlenty:
As Governor, he has balanced Minnesota's budget three times without raising taxes, despite facing record budget deficits. Governor Pawlenty's most notable accomplishments include proposing and signing into law significant new benefits for veterans and members of the military; enacting a property tax cap, eliminating the marriage penalty and cutting taxes; toughening the state's education standards; reforming the way teachers are paid through a nation-leading performance pay plan; instituting free-market health care reforms that increase accountability and provide tax credits to encourage the use of health savings accounts; and implementing a plan to Americanize our energy sources by generating 25% of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2025.
Pawlenty grew up in South St. Paul, Minnesota. The only child in his family to graduate from college, he attended the University of Minnesota and practiced law in the private sector. His public service career includes serving as a criminal prosecutor, Eagan City Councilmember, and ten-year member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, including four years as House Majority Leader. Pawlenty served as Chair of the National Governors Association and on the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, the Achieve Inc. Board of Directors and the James B. Hunt Jr. Institute Board of Directors. He is Chair of the Education Commission of the States and former Chair of the Midwestern Governors Association.
Shuster made his comments today shortly after 4:30 p.m. EDT in reaction to Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), who recently suggested that Tenth Amendment grounds could be a means of opposing as unconstitutional certain Democratic health care proposals.
That according to brilliant constitutional scholar MSNBC's David "biased in favor of facts" Shuster, who matter-of-factly insists the "general welfare" clause in Article 1 of the Constitution "unambiguously authorizes" social welfare spending like "social security, Medicare, veterans' care, etc."
We have been shown how Economists were corrupted in their thinking and dealing by the federal reserve one has to wonder about the state of the mainstream news reporters who are increasingly biased to deliver the news to fit a certain agenda. The 10th Amendment is a bunch of baloney see for yourself.
Send Letter to Editor
Comments in Response
Comment by:
Solid Snake (#23814) Entered on: 2009-09-12 21:20:58
While some may claim that
the term "general welfare," in an authorization to raise revenue in the
opening paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8, could justify such Federal
involvement; that notion will not stand review in context. There is
little "general" about health services. They are inherently personal;
inherently peculiar to the particular nature, needs and afflictions of
an individual being served. Even a cursory glance at the other specific
powers & functions addressed in the Section will reveal nothing
functionally analogous to such overreach. All deal with functions that
serve a purpose common to the interests of the whole people, in each of
the several States--truly general in nature, never particular to those
who suffer from a personal problem, such as an inability to afford
something (here, insurance). Considering, also, the direct restriction
on the taxing power in Art. I, Sec. 9, to prevent the use of taxation
as a leveler of wealth & achievement; it is clear, indeed, that a
program intended to equalize the medical resources of individuals, was
neither authorized nor imagined. [Note: While the XVIth Amendment did
change the Constitutional ban on a graduated income tax, it is confined
to the power to tax. It does not extend powers or purposes, for which
spending is authorized. Again, there is no suggestion of a power or
function to subsidize any individual civilian's access to expensive
health care.]
