Citizens ask during Health Care Town Hall "Where's The Constitutional Authority?"

America's Independent Party ^ | August 13, 2009 | Bob Bailey

[EternalVigilance]

AIPNews - Maryland
Bob Bailey

Members of the "We Surround Them - Frederick MD" stood up in the Hagerstown Hall meeting on August 12 and asked Senator Ben Carden where he has the right to enact health care legislation and how was he going to pay for it. The "We Surround Them - Frederick MD" is a 9-12 organization based in Frederick, Maryland. The link to their organization is http://www.meetup.com/The-Frederick-County-We-Surround-Them-Meetup/

First up from "We Surround Them - Frederick MD" was Joshua Lyons ordering Senator Carden to cease and desist.

Senator Carden's answer referred to the General Welfare clause in the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygInRIabq_g&feature=player_embedded

Full text:

As a citizen of the United States and a Marylander, I order you to cease and desist under the 9th and 10th Amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution to addressing the Health Care legislation.

If you do not stop, I charge you Sen. Cardin with usurping authority not granted to you as a United States Senator.

What is the enumerated power in Article 1 Section 8 that you're acting under to give you the authority? I don't want hear General Welfare, Commerce, or Necessary and Proper.

Following Joshua's comments Mark Kreslins, another member of the "We Surround Them - Frederick MD", first correctly asserts that the Senator is in direct conflict with James Madison on the General Welfare interpretation, and then asked how America was going to pay the debt already incurred by this Congress, plus the debt that would be created by the health care legislation being proposed.

Senator Carden answer was that the health care plan is to be designed to control cost and thus help the American economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aHmRG7hNwM&feature=player_embedded

Other Cardin Town Hall media links including or referring to the questions asked by We Surround Them - Frederick members:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2009/08/12/dcl.jy.health.care.cnn
http://wbal.com/apps/news/articlefiles/33437-00410.mp3
http://wbal.com/apps/news/templates/story.aspx?articleid=33437&zoneid=2
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26049.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0809/Cardins_tough_town_hall.html

[Texas Fossil]

Question: “Where’s The Constitutional Authority?”

We do not have any, but “I won”.

[EternalVigilance]

ping...

[ripley]

“Where’s The Constitutional Authority?”

Only Liberals are brilliant enough to see that it exists. All others are doomed, in their stupidity, to be restricted by some old piece of paper, written by a bunch of white men who are no longer alive. Doncha know?

/S/

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

There is no Constitutional Authority. But that doesn’t bother the left. They do whatever they want as long as it forces America closer to their ideal of a marxist paradise.

[DuncanWaring]

If their response is in the “General Welfare” clause, ask “Why, then, did the authors of the Constitution set up an elaborate set of checks and balances, with carefully enumerated powers, when they could have just said ‘The Federal Government shall promote the General Welfare’ and saved themselves a long, hot summer in Philadelphia?”

[DustyMoment]

Members of the "We Surround Them - Frederick MD" stood up in the Hagerstown Hall meeting on August 12 and asked Senator Ben Carden where he has the right to enact health care legislation and how was he going to pay for it.

Ruh roh . . . . . somebody just made the White House "enemies" list!!

[ml/nj]

Senator Carden's answer referred to the General Welfare clause in the Constitution.

The phrase "general welfare" occurs twice in the Consitution. The first time it appears is in the Preamable, which the courts have held to "convey no law." The second time it appears is in the taxation clause, about which James Madison (you know, the father or the Constitution) said:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. [The Federalist No. 41 excerpt]

ML/NJ

[kalee]

bookmark

[rjsimmon]

It completely astounds me that there are those who would seek the cousel of European courts and completely exclude the wisdom found here at home in the Federalist Papers.

[mattdono]

The Bible.
The US Constitution.

Two books that most elected officials are woefully ignorant of.

The RIGHT do to this doesn’t come from winning an election.

And, if this is such a monumental need for the American people and many liberals try to define health care as a right anyway, why not make it a legitimate amendment to the the US Constitution and go through that process? Huh?

We already know the answer to that.

[mattdono]

Some of us are smarter than 1 of them.

I simply hope that these elected officials keep on this track. The American people will come to a crucible moment and I believe that we “get it” and throw these bassturds out. (misspelling on propose, cause its funnier that way).

[massgopguy]

When I told a Moonbat that the Preamble’s “to our posterity” clause could prohibit Abortion, she said the Preamble doesn’t count. I said “you mean the WE THE PEOPLE part”?

[EternalVigilance]

Great post.

[EternalVigilance]

The Constitution itself never calls its opening words a “Preamble.” That’s just the word that is commonly used for it.

In fact, what it is is a Statement of Purpose.

But the words “General Welfare” are turned on their head by this generation of political and legal elites.

What they mean is “the good of all.”

Socialism can never meet that definition, because taking from the productive and giving to the non-productive is the exact opposite of the good of all. It is the good of the chosen few, the politically favored, at the expense of whoever Congress decides to make the victim of the theft.

[camp_steveo]

Thanks for the info. I am using it in a debate with the statists on their forum. :D

[massgopguy]

Plus “Promote” does not mean “Provide” which is expressly noted as to national defense.

[EternalVigilance]

Good point.

[patton]

That is interesting. Read the 2A, with that in mind.

[ml/nj]

The Federalist has some good 2A stuff. It NEVER OCCURRED to the writers that the government might restrict the right to bear arms. Here's an example:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance. [The Federalist No. 28 - Hamilton - excerpt]

Of course, the essays in The Federalist Papers were written before the Amendments were proposed, and to some extent were an argument against the necessity of a Bill of Rights.

ML/NJ