For the whole series of Zero dollar bills, go here:
Posted on 10/25/2009 1:52:42 PM PDT by John Semmens
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) rebutted claims that a government mandate compelling everyone to buy health insurance would be unconstitutional.
“As I read the Constitution, the government has the right to enact any requirement it deems serves the general welfare of the nation,” Hoyer asserted. “If we feel that the nation’s general welfare would be served by requiring everyone to purchase health insurance, we will do so. If we feel that the general welfare would be served by forcing everyone to get a flu shot, then everyone will have to get a shot.”
Hoyer maintained that “the idea that individuals have rights that supercede the general welfare is flat out wrong. Letting people decide for themselves is the road to anarchy. Individual prerogatives are a privilege that must be closely monitored by the government. If any of these privileges clash with the general welfare they are null and void. Congress will take whatever steps to suppress them whenever it deems it necessary to do so.”
(Excerpt) Read more at azconserv1.wordpress.com ...
.............................................whatever.
Continuing proof that none of them has the slightest idea of what is in the Constitution. They just know that it is always getting in the way of Tyrants.
I like Madison on the meaning of the General Welfare clause.
Of course, Hoyer’s views probably match up with Republicans like George W. Bush. It is possible even Boehner and McConnell would agree more with Hoyer than with Madison.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." — James Madison
| From the desk of cc2k: |
Candidates I support: Doug Hoffman for Congress, NY 23rd (PayPal), David Harmer for Congress, CA 10th (website for info). Please, spread the word about these important special elections on November 3, 209: New York’s 23rd congressional district and California’s 10th congressional district. |
You should go for the hat trick. :)-
Ah, satire. The beauty of satire is it so closely resembles truth.
Proof of what? This is satire. It’s scary how realistic satire can sound nowadays, but let’s not be using satire to “prove” anything...
“... and PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE ...”
No where does it say - REQUIRE EVERYBODY TO HAVE HEALTHCARE.
So the ‘general welfare” clause can be read:
Disreagard all previous or subsequent sections of this doucument,
is that his argument?
Oh, I see it was that semi crap posted here again.
The General Welfare clause was thoroughly debated in the Constitutional Convention. There is the well-known story, true or not, of Gouverneur Morris trying to slip in a semicolon to make it less tied to defense. What is undeniable is that “general welfare” came from the Articles of Confederation, probably via John Dickinson. It was intended for funding debts due to the war. In the Constitution, it was intended for levying taxes and funding debt, not for “anything that is good for the country.” Madison, as another poster here noted, rejected that. Alexander Hamilton, one of the first Big Government politicians, argued about the same as Hoyer did. There is, however, ample evidence that the founders did not intend anything like health care as they did not put it into Article I, and most thought the 10th Amendment was a redundancy, totally unnecessary because the Constitution was clear enough that Congress’ powers are completely outlined in Article I.
Oops, I looked at this again and realized it’s faux news. What should have caught my attention is that Steny Hoyer would never try to justify something as constitutional. He just does it and never speaks of whether it’s legal. The same goes for the Supreme Court.
The general welfare the founders envisioned surely consisted primarily of the preservation of individual liberty, not socialist collectivism.
Principles of tyranny in a nutshell.
Like Hitler described the general welfare to the Jews as his thugs hauled them off.
For the whole series of Zero dollar bills, go here:
The “general welfare” clause is NOT a power granted to the government, it’s a goal for the constitution. The constitution grants specific and limiter powers to the government, with the purpose of those powers being to meet the goals set out by the framers.
only an idiot would confuse the goal of something with the powers used to attain that goal.
The fact is, the general welfare is best secured when the federal government does little or nothing. That’s why the framers gave the federal government so little power.
Well, Steny IS a lawyer. He just never was a very good one. His legal practice in Maryland was not much he is a bought and paid for DemocRAT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.