Maybe I wasn't being specific enough.
By broad guidelines, I mean ensuring equal protection under the law. The Federal government already has that authority under the 14th.
The constitution isn't meant to be a "broad" document. And it was more a guideline for the Federal government to stay the heck out of an individual's life. For nearly 2 decades the people of this country were fiercely independent and proud of that self sufficiency. What started with Woodrow Wilson, vastly increased under FDR, and was put on steroids by Johnson has done much to destroy what made this country exceptional. It's heartbreaking.
For the second part, access to fair healthcare and a healthy educational system doesn't necessarily have to destroy individuality. I'm no fan of a welfare state, but a safety net can take a load off people's minds and allow to focus their efforts elsewhere: inventing, researching, bettering themselves and the whole of society.
Health care: As European countries are finding out, government health care is unaffordable and unsustainable. At some point they have to begin deciding what they will and won't cover. And what happens when they start telling us what we can or can't do? What happens when they decide taking your kids to McDonald's isn't healthy and since they're paying for it they'll just tax it so high (to pay for health care) it will be impossible for poorer families to afford. So the family that can only afford the occasional treat for their kids will no longer be able to afford it. However, wealthy families will be able to afford it any time they want. Granted, it's a small thing but it's a really big deal for families who are rarely able to afford treats as it is. Essentially you're taking the right to make FAMILY decisions away from FAMILIES. An impersonal federal government has no business sticking their nose into individual rights.
What if we allowed people to buy insurance across state lines to increase competition? I'll give you an example. My grandmother lives in CA and she's on Medicare. She has a Medicare Advantage plan (though Lord knows for how much longer) because it's cheaper than buying Medigap and a separate drug policy. My dad lives here in OR and has a MUCH better policy than my grandmother that he pays almost nothing. My grandmother pays nearly $100 a month (plus $400 in meds a month) and has bare bones coverage. The regulations in CA are such that insurance companies (whose profit margins are extremely low) have to charge more to comply. OR, on the other hand, is one of the least expensive states to buy insurance. What if my Nana could buy insurance here? Either CA would have enough pressure on them that they'd rethink their obnoxious regulations or citizens could buy more affordable policies elsewhere?
What about young people who don't feel like having insurance? Or people who can afford not to have it? Or people who just don't want it for whatever reason? Should they be "fined" or "taxed" (depending whether you're in court or congress). Forcing people to pay(because that's what a fine/tax does) for something they don't want and dictating the kind of coverage they have to have IS taking away their basic freedom of making decisions for themselves or their families.
Exactly. But with so many factors weighing against the individual in society, this statement means that government has to step in a lot. Some things are out of the individual's hands--unfair business practices, high costs for medical procedures, de facto racial/gender/religious discrimination, poor educational system, et al. Government steps in to protect the individual from unfair interest rates, they can build credit, get loans, start a small business. Government takes measure to lower the average costs of health insurance (note: NOT saying public option, and definitely NOT saying mandate), people can get regular checkups, be healthier, miss work less often, and be more productive.
Oh cry me a river! Government nannies make people unable to care for themselves. And what's the end result of all these regulations being put in place? A lot less competition and a congress/executive branch that plays favorites based on campaign donations. It means special interests (like unions who are the most powerful special interest groups in the country) can broker deals that serve their interests but leave the rest of us, who are the majority, paying for their special perks. It means companies like Freddie and Fannie and Goldmann Sachs get special perks (even if they're berated in public) while other, maybe more ethical companies not paying for their personal government teat, twist in the wind until they flounder. Oh and the government "stepping in" to help people get loans is precisely what got us into this mess. The housing market collapsed because loan companies were bundling their high risk loans and selling them to brokers who sold them to individuals. People that never should have gotten loans they shouldn't have had because of poor credit or buying more house than they can afford started defaulting on their loans. Companies HAD to make these loans. They had to have some ways to minimize the risk which is where spreading the risk to investors came in.
Besides, there have always been factors weighing against the people of this country. Imagine being one of the first people to land at Plymouth Rock. I'd rather be poor now, thank you very much! What about those that braved dangers to travel across the country in covered wagons seeking a better life? Both those groups faced bigger hardships than anything we can hope to face. Prisoners and generational welfare families face much lesser hardships.
The whole equality thing really pisses me off. I'm a woman and the only time in my life when I THOUGHT I was being discriminated against was when I was in college taking wimmins studies classes. I saw every single perceived slight (taught to me by extremely angry women) as a slight against women. When I decided I was tired of being pissed off all the time and got away from a group of people who purposely tried to keep women down I realized the world wasn't unfair. And as far as race discrimination goes...isn't it more discriminatory to tell a person of color "we just don't think you can get into this college or get this job unless we step in and create special conditions". "Those WASPS are just smarter than you!"
And the educational system in this country sucks regardless of how much money we pour into it. Just look at the districts with the poorest achievements and highest dropout rates...they're the ones getting the most government money. That's all I'm going to say about education because this is something that infuriates me. The educational system is the armpit of the country.
This, of course, assumes the average person wants to be productive...
But anyway, this argument is generally moot, since the preamble holds no legal standing, as the body of the Constitution does.
Oh but it's not moot at all. It sets the premise of the constitution. Just as the Federalist papers give us incites into what the founders were thinking when they created the constitution. It's scope is very narrow for the most important reason of all: to protect our freedom. I'll take my freedom and I'm far from rich. My family has struggled our lives because of choices (not necessarily bad, we chose to be a one income family). We're still struggling and our kids are grown. But NO ONE should have to pay for my choices. I homeschooled, why should I pay for a school system my child didn't use? I'm bipolar which wasn't my choice but it's just something I have to deal with. Other people have different struggles. Why should anyone else have to pay for my meds or therapist? They can pay for their choices and hardships and I'll do the same.
Cindie
