The danger of “LGBT” teachers.

[Ken]

Ah, yes, very dangerous to have a democracy where the people’s elected representatives set policy.

I think they are out of their lane when they are setting health policy and know nothing about the subject. We already have public health agencies, medical boards, and so forth whose job it actually is to do those things. Especially when by doing so they are infringing on personal and family autonomy.

Perhaps, but I disremember any provision in the Constitution authorizing an unelected agency to infringe on the personal rights of the citizenry.

Congress did that in 1944 when it enacted a sweeping public health law that granted expansive powers to the executive brand in the event of a public health emergency. Part of that law was Title 42 which Trump used to shut down the border and stop immigration. Remember that?

[ken_sylvania]

I think they are out of their lane when they are setting health policy and know nothing about the subject. We already have public health agencies, medical boards, and so forth whose job it actually is to do those things. Especially when by doing so they are infringing on personal and family autonomy.

Perhaps, but I disremember any provision in the Constitution authorizing an unelected agency to infringe on the personal rights of the citizenry.

Congress did that in 1944 when it enacted a sweeping public health law that granted expansive powers to the executive brand in the event of a public health emergency. Part of that law was Title 42 which Trump used to shut down the border and stop immigration. Remember that?

But you said congress is out of their lane to be setting health policy. Remember?
You might be correct though - granting expansive powers to the executive brand (I guess TRUMP is the most recognizable of those brands) might not have been that bright of an idea.

[Ken]

Perhaps, but I disremember any provision in the Constitution authorizing an unelected agency to infringe on the personal rights of the citizenry.

Congress did that in 1944 when it enacted a sweeping public health law that granted expansive powers to the executive brand in the event of a public health emergency. Part of that law was Title 42 which Trump used to shut down the border and stop immigration. Remember that?

But you said congress is out of their lane to be setting health policy. Remember?
You might be correct though - granting expansive powers to the executive brand (I guess TRUMP is the most recognizable of those brands) might not have been that bright of an idea.

I think what happened in 1944 was exactly correct. Senators and Congressmen are not public health experts. Nor can they anticipate what future public health emergencies might look like. And they are also unable to respond quickly to emergencies that do arise. So they created an executive branch agency staffed by experts whose job it is to do those things, the CDC. While retaining oversight and budgetary control over that agency.

How many times did the CDC director and other top officials testify to Congress during the pandemic? And how many hearings did the hold? A whole lot. that is oversight. And during the normal appropriations process Congress SHOULD be taking a hard look at agency budgets to see that the money is being appropriated and spent properly. That is one thing they have been horribly negligent about with the endless budget crises and continuing resolutions and stop-gap measures to prevent government shutdowns. When they play those games they are abdicating their budgetary oversight responsibilities.

[Josh]

Why does the federal government need to care about public health at all? This is something the states can do.

[Ken]

Why does the federal government need to care about public health at all? This is something the states can do.

No, actually they can't.

Most states do not remotely have the capacity to research and track new diseases
States do not have the ability to control their own borders or international borders to prevent pandemic spread
States do not have the authority marshal and distribute things like PPE on a national basis
States do not have the ability to regulate the development of new drugs, vaccines, and other medicines and the import of the same from overseas

If the Federal government ceased to operate in that arena, states would simply be forced to do what small countries do and that is defer authority to international organizations like the EU and the WHO to do all of those things. That what you want?

[Judas Maccabeus]

Why does the federal government need to care about public health at all? This is something the states can do.

Seriously, Josh, do you want to bring back our “First Republic.” The central government was so weak that it was nearly nonfunctional. The Articles of Confederation that governed it provided for a critically weak central government.

It was a dismal failure.

Ultimately, the Federalists won over the Anti-Federalists.

[Josh]

Why does the federal government need to care about public health at all? This is something the states can do.

Seriously, Josh, do you want to bring back our “First Republic.” The central government was so weak that it was nearly nonfunctional. The Articles of Confederation that governed it provided for a critically weak central government.

It was a dismal failure.

Ultimately, the Federalists won over the Anti-Federalists.

Well, I’m a Federalist myself; I think states should be the primary unit of government, not some gigantic central government. Something like “public health” clearly belongs at the state level.

As we saw during Covid, public health is an excuse bureaucrats use to close things like churches. I much prefer state level accountability for that than federal level.

[Szdfan]

Why does the federal government need to care about public health at all? This is something the states can do.

Seriously, Josh, do you want to bring back our “First Republic.” The central government was so weak that it was nearly nonfunctional. The Articles of Confederation that governed it provided for a critically weak central government.

It was a dismal failure.

Ultimately, the Federalists won over the Anti-Federalists.

Well, I’m a Federalist myself; I think states should be the primary unit of government, not some gigantic central government. Something like “public health” clearly belongs at the state level.

As we saw during Covid, public health is an excuse bureaucrats use to close things like churches. I much prefer state level accountability for that than federal level.

Quarantine restrictions were set by state public health departments during COVID, not the federal government.

[Josh]

Quarantine restrictions were set by state public health departments during COVID, not the federal government.

Yes, which is why they weren’t much worse. At the federal level Fauci and Birx were calling for very severe restrictions. Thankfully, many states ignored them.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Why does the federal government need to care about public health at all? This is something the states can do.

Seriously, Josh, do you want to bring back our “First Republic.” The central government was so weak that it was nearly nonfunctional. The Articles of Confederation that governed it provided for a critically weak central government.

It was a dismal failure.

Ultimately, the Federalists won over the Anti-Federalists.

Well, I’m a Federalist myself; I think states should be the primary unit of government, not some gigantic central government. Something like “public health” clearly belongs at the state level.

As we saw during Covid, public health is an excuse bureaucrats use to close things like churches. I much prefer state level accountability for that than federal level.

Federal supremacy was largely decided by the civil war, and the 14th and 15 amendments that followed. You are jostling windmills if you think that can be rolled back.

State supremacy would have been more of an anti Federalist position. In the Constitution it was largely left undefined. The civil war defined it.