The department you cited are authorized under Article 1 Section 8 Commerce clause of the constitution. The Federal government has the power to regulate commerce between of the states both with other countries and other states. When we look at what was going on in the mid to late 1700's the we see that there was a population of a few thousand people and thirteen states. At this time the logistics of the areas covered by the departments you cite would have been much simpler.
One of the functions of the Executive branch is to serve as the national administrator. As the complexity of commerce and the needs for uniformity increased the need for compartmentalizing increased. An example: prior to the 1970's ability of a company to transport goods from one side of the country to the other was impossible without breaking many state laws. This was because each state had set rules regarding length, width, height and weight of a truck and trailer combination. When the DOT got involved it established a uniform standard for all truck and trailer combinations. This reduced the time and cost of transporting goods from point "a" to point "b".
Today most complaints about the validity of an agency comes from businesses and their supporters because a rule or regulation reduces profit margins. Our government is supposed to put the needs of the people ahead of the needs of business or other special interests. That seems to be missing from our legislative body over the last thirty years.
SC: You cite the Liberal augument for all the expansion of the Federal Government. It is false. If our Independent and Sovereign States wanted the clause you cite in Artcle I section 8 to cover vitually anything as the Liberal Left claims, then there would be no need for the Constitution. The Constitution only gave very limited power to the new Federal Government that the States created. Americans need to understand that States created the Federal Government not the other way around. Furthermore, the States can take back their power they granted to the Federal Government, by two thirds of the State passing a Constitutional Amendment.
1. Our Independent State gave some of their power to a new Federal Government they created. The powers they gave are in Article I section 8 and they all dealt with allowing the Federal Government to regulate in these areas for the common good of all the States. You don't want each of our sovereign State raising it's own Army independent from other States and so on. You don't want each State printing it's own money, and so on. Some things were better done by the (Central) Federal Government for benifit of all the States. As for the words in Article I section 8 " To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and amoung the several States" this clause gave the Federal Government the ability to settle disputs involing commerce between the States because that was the only logical way it could be done. An example of this is the water dispute between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Water is need to do business in all three States. When the individual States had a dispute between them a way to resolve the dispute was needed. This clause in Article I section 8 was never to be used to regulate health care, because each State can run it's own system under the Tenth Amendment. Just because liberals have been able to use the ignorance (not knowing our Constitution ), suffered by so many of our citizens because the Constitution has been taught less and less the past 70 years in our public schools dominated by liberal thinking educators, does't make it right, legal or Constitutional. Finally, if the Liberals want to regulate our health care, or how we educate our children by using the Federal Government, they MUST get the permission from two thirds of our State thru a Constitutional Amendment to add them to Article I section 8.
I do agree with the idea that civics in general have been taught less and less over the years. I believe that in recent years it has suffered because it is not part of the No Child Left Behind Test. The idea that liberals have taken advantage of this is false and the NRA is a case in point. Since Clinton left office they have told the American people that every Democratic president was going to abolish the second amendment.
Many people believe that a President can simply by executive order abolish the second amendment. This as you have pointed out is simply false. Many organizations of any political strip have taken advantage of the lack of knowledge of the constitution. It is up to people like us to inform people of the constitution and what it means in our daily lives.
The constitution stands as our guiding document to insure that the rights of all are protected. It is too easy for a minority party to force their will on the masses or for the issue of the day to define our rights going forward. When Social Security was implemented it was as popular as ObamaCare is today and now we cannot live without it.
The commerce portion of Article 1 Section 8 applies to all commerce between states. When the constitution was written I do not think many businesses had branches in multiple states. Times change and yet as my historical research has born out fights between states remain the norm.
Today they happen in the board room, court room before it happens in the legislative halls. Since our country was founded there has always been a battle between people over the proper size of government. When things are going well the battle is going on behind the scenes. When something is unpopular the battle goes main stream. No news here. It does seem that your argument is more about ObamaCare then about the constitution and peoples understanding of it.
If your conversation were simply about the constitution then you would comment about how the left and the right have used the lack of education on constitution to their advantage. I do not agree with all aspects of ObamaCare. Though I will give the man credit for giving the issue of health care more than lip service. Since Nixon that is all any president accomplished, lip service. The issue of the cost of health care is something that will ruin this country and that is something that needs to be dealt with. It is also an issue that is too large for the typical one size fits all solution.
SC: You are right to say that both left and right use the lack of eduction and understanding of our Constitution to push foward their agenda. Both Parties have Progessive Liberals. The Republicans refer to them as moderates. Both Parties believe in big government. The difference is each wants to control the government for the benifit of their supporters. This is why the Founding Fathers feared the Party system. The parties would only be interested in satisfying the demands of their supporters rather then what was best for the whole country. The party system would lead to who had the biggest mob of people. That party would become the ruling class. This is why there is so much concern over illegal immigration. Both parties are jocking to have the biggest mob when the dust settles. My brother once told me he voted Republican only because they stole his hard earned money at a slower pace.
It would seem that some are trying to dumb down the masses. People follow the talking heads and no longer take time to find out for themselves what is true and what is just ideology. It becomes even harder when some of these talking heads attempt to rewrite history to prove their ideology is the only correct one. Ignorance is not bliss. Prior to the 80's we were all Americans, since then we became (ethnic group)-Americans and now we hear about individual/state rights. We continue to be divided and encouraged to fight each other. This keeps us from seeing what is going on behind the curtain. That makes us weaker as a nation. United we stand and divided we fall.
Have to disagree with on one fine point of history.
"Prior to the 80's we were all Americans, since then we became (ethnic group)-Americans..."
Sorry man, that revoltution took place in the 60's. The 80's has it's faults (greed being the most cited sin), but the "Division of America" was most definitely from 1966-1975.
Peace, man. Down with the pigs. Don't let the Man keep you down. AIM. Black Power. Weathermen. Symbionese army.
Makes me sick to type that drivel.
The extreme left AND extreme right have one thing in common.....
Neither are a friend of The Constitution.
jvestal: You hit the nail on the head.
Charles and Angie Howell: Here is something I have kept sence I was in high school in 1963-1967. This was written by my American History teacher in 1967. He was a WWII vet and a great American.
Does This Sound Familiar: In May of 1919 at Dusseldorf, Germany, the Allied Forces obtained a copy of some of the "Communist Rules for Revolution". Fifty years later let us read the Rules , let us pause and think.
A. Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superfiecial; destory their ruggedness.
B. Get control of all means of publicity, thereby;
1. Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays and other trivialities.
2. Divide the people into hostile groups by contantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.
3.Destroy the people's faith in their leaders by holding them up to contempt, ridicule and obloguy.
4. Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.
5. By encouraging government extravagance, distory its credit, produce fear of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.
6. Forment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster lienient and soft attitudes on the part of the government towards such disorders.
7. By specious arguments, cause the breakdown of the old moral virtures, honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word.
C. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretex, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.
( This document was found in a houseorgan of a service club in Dusseldorf, Germany in 1919 )
Charlie, having grown up in a heavy immigrate community(eastern European) during the frame you cite. I never heard anyone refer to themselves as anything other then Americans. The civil rights movement was also strong in the area and even in that they were fighting to have the same rights as the rest of Americans because they were Americans. The ethno-american slag originated in the 80's. After the deaths of the great figures of the 60's (MLK, Kennedy(s), Melcome X)there was a period of loss both in direction and hope that lasted through the 70's. In the 80's divisions became visible and groups began being pitted against each other.
During the civil rights movement of the 60's the struggle was about being inclusive. All groups having the same rights and not one taking rights from another for their own benefit. During the 80's the tone of the conversation changed and if a group tried to share in the benefits the rest had it was painted that if they got the rights your group had you would be giving up your rights. That was a fundamental shift in the perception of our rights.
Lenin stated that the communist movement needed millions of useful idiots willing to think they were fighting for just causes. They would march in the streets demanding justice for all. Once they paralized the government and the economy and chaos broke down all law an order, then the the leaders of the communist take overthrow would step foward as the saviors that can put a stop to the riotss and chaos. The people will give them the government power to stop the chaos.