Deficit commission & Constitution

The Anti-Constitution Faction:

News today comes that the left is planning to use the President's anti-deficit commission to push for amnesty for illegals. Let's remember why this is 'the President's' commission, and not the Senate's:

Obama's version of the commission is a weak substitute for what he really wanted: a panel created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.

The weaker version of the panel doesn't have any such requirement; its recommendations do not automatically force a vote. That was what the President wanted.

Why? Allegedly because of concern that the Congress will otherwise avoid tackling the tough issues that we need to tackle in order to bring down the deficit. We see the immediate expansive view of that power, though: given 'an inch' to tackle this pressing problem, they immediately want to assume the power to pass laws addressing anything at all.

The idea of a limited Federal government apparently does not compute! T99 comments:

Some liberals have difficulty with the idea that government should have a limited role. They assume that everyone must choose between supporting an all-encompassing role or a non-existent one. Anything else strikes them as hypocritical.

What is lost is the idea that there are rules about what the Federal government can or can't do: it has a defined role. Within that role it is free to act, but there are specified limits: there is nothing hypocritical about praising an action within that range, and condemning as intrusive another action that defies the lawful limits of authority. As Cassandra's post points out, limited government advocates can easily support a Federal role in the case of the BP oil spill: it's in the Constitution.

... conservatives understand that maritime affairs traditionally are within the purview of federal jurisdiction, see Article I, Section 10 and Article III, Section 2 of the document known as the United States Constitution.

In a wide and diverse society like this one, where people have divergent values and backgrounds, clear Constitutional limits can inspire trust that would otherwise be lacking. The Federal government would be far more trusted, admired and respected if -- instead of chafing at limits on its power -- it was careful to demonstrate specific Constitutional authority for its every action, and showed clear deference to the limits imposed upon it.

The Tenth Amendment holds that powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. If a tragedy comes up that the Federal government legitimately cannot address, a state-based government response is therefore always possible. The Federal government might even assist the states at their request, and following their lead: but it would need to set aside its claim to power and authority, and merely help as directed.

Such a government, humble and obedient to the permanent will of the people as expressed and codified by our Constitution, would have both wide and deep support. A government that looks for every opportunity to bypass any limits on its power and authority is rightly regarded with suspicion.