Man I thought stupac was dead? Oh wait... Thats Tupac!
If Congress has the authority to raise the top income tax rates to 46% they have the authority raise it to 100%. That sounds like slavery to me. (Check out the definition of involuntary servitude.) Where in the constitution does the Congress get the authority to enslave anyone?
“All due respect’? Sorry, when political hacks like Stupak, Obama, Pelosi and the rest of them show no respect for our country, our Constitution and no respect for the American people I give them no respect what so ever. Respect is earned, not given and the aforementioned bunch has never done anything to warrant any respect.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. (From an 1819 Supreme Court case)
ObamaCare will destroy us. (Self-evident)
Therefore, ObamaCare is constitutional.
AIPNews.com
November 5, 2009
By Tom Hoefling
“It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” – Psalm 118:8
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” -- Patrick Henry
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45
Mr. MADISON. It is supposed, by some gentlemen, that Congress have authority not only to grant bounties in the sense here used, merely as a commutation for drawback, but even to grant them under a power by virtue of which they may do any thing which they may think conducive to the general welfare! This, sir, in my mind, raises the important and fundamental question, whether the general terms which have been cited are to be considered as a sort of caption, or general description of the specified powers; and as having no further meaning, and giving no further powers, than what is found in that specification, or as an abstract and indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever -- to all such, at least, as will admit the application of money -- which is giving as much latitude as any government could well desire.
I, sir, have always conceived -- I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived -- it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived -- that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers -- but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.
It is to be recollected that the terms "common defence and general welfare," as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this Constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as great a latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now assigned to them. On the contrary, it was always considered clear and certain that the old Congress was limited to the enumerated powers, and that the enumeration limited and explained the general terms. I ask the gentlemen themselves, whether it was ever supposed or suspected that the old Congress could give away the money of the states to bounties to encourage agriculture, or for any other purpose they pleased. If such a power had been possessed by that body, it would have been much less impotent, or have borne a very different character from that universally ascribed to it.
The novel idea now annexed to those terms, and never before entertained by the friends or enemies of the government, will have a further consequence, which cannot have been taken into the view of the gentlemen. Their construction would not only give Congress the complete legislative power I have stated, -- it would do more; it would supersede all the restrictions understood at present to lie, in their power with respect to a judiciary. It would put it in the power of Congress to establish courts throughout the United States, with cognizance of suits between citizen and citizen, and in all cases whatsoever.
This, sir, seems to be demonstrable; for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare. I shall be reminded, perhaps, that, according to the terms of the Constitution, the judicial power is to extend to certain cases only, not to all cases. But this circumstance can have no effect in the argument, it being presupposed by the gentlemen, that the specification of certain objects does not limit the import of the general terms. Taking these terms as an abstract and indefinite grant of power, they comprise all the objectsof legislative regulations -- as well such as fall under the judiciary article in the Constitution as those falling immediately under the legislative article; and if the partial enumeration of objects in the legislative article does not, as these gentlemen contend, limit the general power, neither will it be limited by the partial enumeration of objects in the judiciary article.
There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow dearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. 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 a point 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 for 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; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.
The language held in various discussions of this house is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted. In a very late instance -- I mean the debate on the representation bill -- it must be remembered that an argument much used, particularly by gentlemen from Massachusetts, against the ratio of 1 for 30,000, was, that this government was unlike the state governments, which had an indefinite variety of objects within their power; that it had a small number of objects only to attend to; and therefore, that a smaller number of representatives would be sufficient to administer it.
Arguments have been advanced to show that because, in the regulation of trade, indirect and eventual encouragement is given to manufactures, therefore Congress have power to give money in direct bounties, or to grant it in any other way that would answer the same purpose. But surely, sir, there is a great and obvious difference, which it cannot be necessary to enlarge upon. A duty laid on imported implements of husbandry would, in its operation, be an indirect tax on exported produce; but will any one say that, by virtue of a mere power to lay duties on imports, Congress might go directly to the produce or implements of agriculture, or to the articles exported? It is true, duties on exports are expressly prohibited; but if there were no article forbidding them, a power directly to tax exports could never be deduced from a power to tax imports, although such a power might indirectly and incidentally affect exports.
In short, sir, without going farther into the subject. Which I should not have here touched at all but for the reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, 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; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.
How far have succeeding generations, and this generation in particular, departed from the core principles of America’s founding? So far that our corrupt oath-breaking politicians scoff at any who dare raise a mere question that might suggest any limitation on the scope of their personal power. Madison, along with the entire founding generation, would be appalled. We now have a lawless government that totally ignores the clear purposes of our Constitution and seeks to control every single aspect of our lives.
Perhaps if “We the People” could find the will and the strength to force our politicians back within their proper jurisdiction, these "public servants" could then find the time to do their real job, which according to the cornerstone of the organic law of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, is to secure the God-given and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all.
Perhaps they could then find a way to fulfill their duty, sworn before God, to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, which states as its ultimate purpose: “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
-- James Madison
"In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Tom Hoefling is the chairman and founder of America's Independent Party . You can read the AIP Platform and Personal Affiliation Agreement at www.AIPNews.com.
Another blithering libtard idiot passing mental gas in an attempting to defend the indefensible Health Care reform legislation.
Proof again that ignorance with arrogance is a recipe for incoherent thought.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the above is not constrained by the enumerated powers clause?
Related
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2386658/posts
A reporter for CNSNews.com last Thursday asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., where the Constitution delegates Congress the specific power to order Americans to buy health insurance — a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of Obamacare
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSN reporter: “Yes, yes I am”
Ms. Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter, never giving an answer.
Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then advised CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a “serious question.”
“You can put this on the record,” said Mr. Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
"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
Your links don’t work
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.