Stupak gets hit over the head with the Constitution

Jennerationx ^ | 11/15/09 | jenk

[jenk]

On the Constitution

Things get a little contentious here, and this is why I like to listen to Beckmann. He rightly points out that no where in the Constitution does it allow for the government to take over the health care industry. Bart insists it does say so in Article I, Section 8 with the words the left have been using to bring the country to point it is today with rampant socialism and welfare programs that have done nothing but create a dependent society-”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to…provide for…..general welfare….”

When Frank tells Stupak that we must look for the intent of the signers like Madison to understand the article, Bart says, “not everyone agreed with Maderson and Jefferson,” and that if the government agrees that it is in the best interest of the nation, it is constitutional. Frank replies:

Congressman with all due respect, if you are promoting that, with all due respect, I think you are promoting tyranny. You are not following the constitution which says, that there are ways to change the Constitution through amendment, and a majority vote in the congress is not one of them.

This statement befuddles Stupak to the point that Frank has to reiterate that the Constitution places restrictions on congress,

[Hot Tabasco]

Your links don’t work

[FredZarguna]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the above is not constrained by the enumerated powers clause?

It doesn't, and in Federalist 41 Madison says so explicitly and vehemently, a statement he repeated in at least one important veto, and in numerous statements on record before the House.

In fact, properly understood, the general welfare clause actually limits power even more than the enumerated powers clause, because it says that in exercising its enumerated powers, Congress may only do so for the general welfare i.e. The welfare of everyone. Thus, it is within Congress's enumerated power to establish a post road, but it may not do so for the sake of Fred Zarguna, or for the sake of some people in Flushing, but for the general welfare only.

[Hot Tabasco]

Stupak is my Congress-Creep,

Then you and your friends should start bombing your major newspapers with letters to the editors up there with his quotes from this episode. From the little I know about this twit, he has the support of sportsmen and the NRA but after what he said to Beckman, these same Dem sportsmen could turn the tide on his next election.........

[CharlesWayneCT]

That article says the way congress can collect money for the purpose of promoting the general welfare.

It doesn’t say they can pass laws to control industry for the general welfare.

“the general welfare” is a goal, not a program. The preamble says that the general welfare is a goal of the government, and the constitution tells us what the government can do for that goal. And one of the things they can do is raise funds, in the manner described.

If a liberal tells you “the general welfare” means they can do health care, ask them if they think that, if a majority decides it’s best for the country if we ban abortion, the “general welfare” clause would therefore make it OK to ban abortions.

[jenk]

on my blog, yes, they do