Political Parties: Can't Live w/ Them, Can't Live w/o Them

It’s always funny to see people complain and gripe about politics (political parties in general). They do have very good reasons to do so, but it’s still funny. They complain that the political party system is the reason why the American government has gone down the tubes, but they forget (or more possibly, don’t know) that political parties and their ilk have been around pretty much since the establishment of this country.

The very first political parties in existence were the Democratic-Republicans (yes, really) and Federalists, led by none other than Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, respectively. Even at the beginning of this country’s birth, people have debated and disagreed strongly on how it should be run. Jefferson and Hamilton disagreed on well, practically everything. From establishing banks (Hamilton wanted them, Jefferson didn’t), constitutional interpretation (Hamilton favored a broader interpretation while Jefferson preferred a strict interpretation), to foreign affairs (Hamilton wanted to have better ties with the British for trade purposes while Jefferson wanted to support the French in their endeavors to defeat Great Britain), they couldn’t agree on a single issue. These strong personalities clashed with one another and people flocked under them to support their views.

After Washington stepped down (he stayed neutral in all of these politics) there was debate on who would succeed him. John Adams (who was a Federalist) and Jefferson ran, with Adams winning and Jefferson assuming the vice presidency. Afterwards, when Adams ran again for presidency, Hamilton led their own party against him, paving the way for Aaron Burr to become the Federalist candidate. This isn’t too far removed from our current political system, where multiple candidates from the same party vie against each other to win the nomination (Romney-Gingrich anyone?) and people from within the party throw support for one or the other.

Mudslinging was also common back then too, surprisingly. During the French Revolution, the Federalists denounced the French revolutionaries’ actions (especially during the Reign of Terror) while the Democratic-Republicans were more sympathetic to the Revolution, especially when Britain stepped in to restore the monarchy. The Federalists then accused the Democratic-Republicans of wanting to replicate the horrors of the Revolution on American soil, and the Democratic-Republicans responded by calling them monarchists who wanted to repress the rights of the common man.

In all fairness to the founding fathers, they were men who most likely had the country's best interest in mind. The problem was that they had very different ideas on what the country's best interest was. They were very stubborn and unwilling to compromise on what they thought was right. The rivalry and bitterness, while pronounced, probably wasn't as bad as they are today since the "loser" of the presidential election would assume the office of vice president. The founding fathers probably assumed that patriotism and love for country would override rivalry and competition. This was amended later with the 12th Amendment which is why we vote for a president and vice president on the same ticket today.

Disagreeing with one another is part of human nature. Our different background, views, and personality make it so. Political parties are there to help people who have like-minded views express them better. The problem is when people forget to be courteous and polite with one another, that people are perfectly capable in "agreeing to disagree" and think that the best way to convince someone to their opinion is to declare them ignoramuses and insult everything they know and love. Somehow, that's become to be considered as the most effective way to get one's point across. Now that's really unfunny.

A History and Summary of the State of the Union

In light of the State of the Union Address that was given this past week, I wanted to do some research and learn more about what a State of the Union Address was. Why do we have one? What is the purpose of a State of the Union? How has it evolved during the years?

The answer to the first question (and a good part of the second) was pretty easy to find. The Constitution states that the President:

"...shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

-Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution

Well, that's fine and dandy, but it's still pretty vague. This bit from the Constitution gives no instructions on how it should be delivered or when, for starters. All it states is that the president needs to tell Congress on how the country is doing. No instructions on how it should be given, how many times it should be given or even how long it should be. I guess the framers decided that it was okay for each president to use his discretion on those details.

Have they ever. During my research (I don't know if I should even call it that since it was so short) I found a website that has archived every single State of the Union Address since George Washington (it's a really interesting website with a lot of statistics about them, I recommend taking a look-see: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu). Wikipedia also has a brief synopsis of the history and traditions revolving around the State of the Union. Here is what I found.

Frequency and Delivery

George Washington was the president to begin the tradition of delivering a yearly State of the Union address, which all presidents have followed since. While both Washington and Adams delivered their addresses orally, Thomas Jefferson delivered it via written format, thinking that a speech was too monarchical. This tradition pretty much continued unbroken until Calvin Coolidge. After Coolidge, presidents began to deliver them either written or orally (sometimes switching between the two during their terms) until today, where the preferred method is spoken. Advances in technology is a likely factor as to this transition.

The date and when a State of the Union was delivered differed between the years. Originally, it was delivered at the end of the year, around November-December. After the 20th Amendment (which dictated when terms of elected officials would start), the address moved to the end of January, which is still done today. FDR set the precedent for delivering the address in the evening.

Traditionally, the first speech given by a modern-day president (starting with Reagan) is not considered a State of the Union address, even though it might be given under all the trappings of a traditional State of the Union address. A president leaving office has an option to deliver a final address, but most choose not to.

The only two presidents who have not delivered a State of the Union address are William Henry Harrison and James A. Garfield, not because they didn't want to, but because they passed away before given the opportunity.

Statistics

Generally, oral State of the Union address were shorter than the written ones. The shortest addresses were given by John Adams, who averaged about 1,700 words per speech. The longest addresses were written by William Howard Taft, which were approximately 22,000 words each. Modern-day presidents are starting to give longer ones, but none of them have gone over 10,000 words.

Themes

The objective of a State of the Union, as stated by the Constitution, is to deliver information about the country's status, as well as recommendations the president thinks Congress should look into for the betterment of the country. Topics have ranged from the economy to war, education to international relations, and everything in between. Recommendations to Congress have also varied. For example, George Washington's first State of the Union address spoke about a strong defense for the good of the country ("to be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace"), naturalization, currency, and maintaining diplomatic relations with foreign nations, to name a few. While it was short, it held many topics Washington felt was necessary for Congress to review to help the country grow.

No matter what the theme is, since 1966 the president's opposing party have made it a tradition to issue a response to the State of the Union (the official name for this is Democratic/Republican Response). Locations and audiences vary between responses, as well as the speakers chosen to deliver them.

Conclusion

Through tradition and 30 words in the Constitution the State of the Union address has grown, evolved, and adapted itself to conform to the demands different eras and presidents required of it. The address has been short, long, written and spoken. The things that I have learned about the State of the Union has helped me understand it much better than I did before. It is not just another speech the President can dish out at a whim, but a method he can use to address needs he feels that the nation needs to focus on.

The Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

***WARNING***

This is a huge wall of text. I like to ramble. If you don't want to read the whole thing, jump down to the very end to "Conclusion" and save yourself ten minutes from my mumbo-jumbo.

***END WARNING***

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into the the PPACA, known to most of us as Obamacare. The law made sweeping changes to health care law that would be phased in gradually throughout seven years to the United States.

While many people do agree that there needs to be a change in health care, most do not agree in the methods PPACA would use to change it. One of the most controversial aspects of the healthcare law is the individual mandate, which requires all citizens to have some form of healthcare coverage or be fined.

Mere hours after the healthcare bill was signed, lawyers representing more than a dozen states brought a lawsuit against the Federal government, stating that the individual mandate, among other things, overstepped Congress' power given to them by the US Constitution. They state that that is a power reserved to the states. The Federal government countered by stating that it is well within their rights to impose an individual mandate, citing the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

With all this bickering between the Feds and the States, various judges ruling either in favor or against the law, the Supreme Court has decided to take on the case and will begin the arguments on March 26, 2012. The main issue they will decide on is on the individual mandate.

So, is the Federal government right in saying that the individual mandate is within their powers, or are the states right in stating that the Federal government has overstepped their bounds? To answer that, we need to review several things namely, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, Amendment 10 of the Constitution, and several Supreme Cases.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America

This section of the Constitution clearly states the powers that Congress will have to run the country. One of them is the Commerce Clause, which states that Congress has the power to regulate international commerce, interstate commerce (this is important) and commerce with the Indian tribes (Native American, to be PC).

The big factor in this clause is to define what the definition of "commerce" is. The Supreme Court has heard several cases to this effect. One of the earliest cases was Gibbons v. Ogden, which stated that commerce relates to every species of commercial intercourse (this was a case about navigation rights) and that Congress' power does not end at the state line (intrastate commerce, commerce that stays within the state exclusively, is not under Congress' domain). This case helped establish Congress' power over commercial commerce, and throughout the years, that power has grown.

One of the reasons this power has grown is the fact that with technology and the increasing interconnected-ness of the country in general, more and more things are being traded interstate and therefore naturally become subject to Congress' power. Another reason is that throughout the years, the Supreme Court has broadened the definition of commerce, so far as including products that never have or will be in commercial traffic (Wickard v. Filburn), or to cleverly help enforce many of the civil rights acts that were being ignored in the South during the 1960's (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Katzenbach v. United States).

The Commerce Clause if often used in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, stating that Congress can make any laws necessary to help them enforce their Constitution-given powers. If they can connect any law to these powers, then they pretty much can do anything (like enforce the civil rights acts).

As we can see, the Commerce Clause has become a very powerful and useful tool for Congress to pass their laws. If they can manage to show that something is commercial-related, they can say that it is within their power. There have been limits to this power however, such as when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Lopez that the connection between taking guns to school and commercial traffic was way too much of a stretch for them to take seriously.

How does this relate to the individual mandate? Well, if Congress can convince the Supreme court that health care is commerce, then they can make laws about it. They do have pretty big hurdles to jump though, one of the biggest is within Gibbons v. Ogden, the very case that helped define commerce. In that case, Chief Justice Marshall explicitly stated that there are rights that a state has that are not surrendered to Congress, such as inspection, quarantine, and health laws of every description. That's an awful big hurdle to jump. In United States v. Lopez, it expresses the opinion that if they (the Supreme Court), were to accept this gun protection law, there would be practically nothing that would not be under the cover of the Commerce Clause.

Sorry for the huge wall of text there, but the Commerce Clause is something that needs to be researched a bit, seeing that it is a Big Thing for Congress.

Amendment 10 of the Constitution of the United States

This amendment states that any power that was not given to Congress (via the Constitution) is reserved for the states (if not prohibited) or to the people. This amendment is probably one of the big arguments that the states will use in their fight against the individual mandate. Congress was not given the power for health care laws, therefore it belongs to the states (or people, but they're probably not picky).

Other Insurance Laws

Many people who are in favor for the individual mandate like to argue that we are required to have car and home insurance, no ifs, ands, or buts. Since this is true they state, what are people who against the health care law complaining about? This is true, but who regulates car and home insurance? Congress doesn't, that's a fact. Car insurance is regulated by the states, and the laws differ from state to state. Home insurance is privately regulated. That's probably another reason why the states are peeved about the federal laws, they want to regulate insurance their own way, in their own states. While "Romneycare" (that health care law Mitt Romney enacted in Mass.) also has an individual mandate, it wasn't that big of a stretch for him to do so, seeing that it was only for his state of Mass. Also, you are not required to have either car or home insurance if you have neither. Some people are irked by the health care law because they feel like it's a tax on simply existing.

Conclusion

I'm not a huge fan of an individual mandate (as any good American, I dislike "do as you're told because I say so" rules), but if I were required to have health insurance by law, I would prefer it to be via state law, not federal law. Given the "legal history" (for lack of a better term) of the United States, the states have more valid reason to enact one if they so wish, rather than the Federal government. The biggest argument that will have to be resolved in the Supreme Court case come March is whether "commerce" covers health care laws. Congress will have to explain away part of Gibbons v. Ogden to do that and/or possibly rewrite the law as to not step on state's rights. Given the fact that the Commerce Clause has gained a lot of power naturally over time, I see no reason to artificially expand their power with new definitions and laws.

Sorry for the long post. It's probably as long as the healthcare law itself.